KENYA FOREST AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Table of ContentsPageExecutive Summary 81.0 Introduction 171.1 USAID Strategic Framework for Africa1.2 USAID Kenya Country Operational Plan1.3 Biodiversity Earmark (USAID/Kenya contributions to biodiversity conservation)1.4 Mid Term Review: Purpose, Methodology and Scope of Work1.5 The MTR Team2.0 USAID/SO 5 Program (Wildlife, Forestry, and Coastal Sectors and Land Tenure) 222.1 SO 5 Framework2.2 Forestry Range Rehabilitation & Environmental Management Strengthening2.3 Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP)2.4 FORREMS and KCMP: Key Themes and Underlying Assumptions3.0 Technical Discussion 283.1 Linkages to Biodiversity Conservation 283.1.1 Forest Rangeland Rehabilitation Environment & Management StrengtheningSituationAnalysis/Conclusions3.1.2 Kenya Coastal Management ProgramSituationAnalysis/Conclusions3.1.3 Recommendations3.2 Sustainable Nature-Focused Business Development 403.2.1 Forest Rangeland Rehabilitation Environment & Management StrengtheningSituationAnalysis/Conclusions3.2.2 Kenya Coastal Management ProgramSituationAnalysis/Conclusions3.2.3 KakamegaSituationAnalysis/Conclusion3.2.4 Recommendations3.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation 53SituationAnalysis/ConclusionsRecommendations3.4 Cross-cutting Issues 57SituationAnalysis/ConclusionsRecommendations3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting 59SituationAnalysis/ConclusionsRecommendations3.6 Program Management and Implementation 63SituationAnalysis/ConclusionsRecommendations4.0 Major Conclusions 724.1 Linkages to Biodiversity Conservation3

4.2 Sustainable Nature-focused Business Development4.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation4.4 Cross-cutting Issues4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting4.6 Program Management and Implementation5.0 Recommendations 765.1 Linkages to Biodiversity Conservation5.2 Sustainable Nature-focused Business Development5.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting5.5 Program Management and ImplementationList of Acronyms 6Tables:Table 1: Roles of the FORREMS Partners 28Table 2: FORREMS and KCMP at a Glance 33Table 3: Nature Based Enterprises 40Table 4: Financial Benefits to Communities from Nature Based Enterprises 45Figures:Figure 1: Option #1: One Contractor or Grantee 13Figure 2: Option #2: Two Grantees 14Figure 3: SO #5 Results Framework 22Annexes 81Annex 1: Kenya Forestry and Coastal Mid-Term Review SOWAnnex 2: Team Member Special Report – M&E IndicatorsAnnex 3: Documents ReviewedAnnex 4: Emerging Opportunities and Directions (USAID/W, GoK, USAID/Kenya)Annex 5: List of ContactsAnnex 6: Schedule and Work Plan of Review Team in Kenya (August - September 2006)Annex 7: Summary Description of Partner InstitutionsAnnex 8: Best Practices/Lessons Learned in CBNRM and NBE Development4

LIST OF ACRONYMSASAWFCAPCBCBNRMCBOCDACFACOPCORECRCCTODCMADCMCDDCDEOEEZEMCAEIAFATFDFiDFORREMSGoKGISICAMICMINRMIRIUCNIWRMJKPBJKPBSHGKAHCKCMIKCMPKEFRIKMFKMFRIKWSLMMALUPLWFM & EMCMMoUMTRArabuko-SokokeAfrican Wildlife FoundationCommunity Action PlanCommunity BasedCommunity-Based Natural Resource ManagementCommunity-Based OrganizationCoastal Development AuthorityCommunity Forest AssociationCountry Operational Plan (also Community Operational Plan of CFA plan)Conservation of Resources through EnterpriseCoastal Resources CenterCognizant Technical OfficerDiani-Chale Management AreaDiani-Chale Management CommitteeDistrict Development CommitteeDistrict Environment OfficerExclusive Economic ZoneEnvironmental Management & Coordination AgencyEnvironmental Impact AssessmentFocal Area TeamForestry DepartmentFisheries DepartmentForest/Rangeland Rehabilitation & Environment Management StrengtheningGovernment of KenyaGeographical Information SystemIntegrated Coastal Area ManagementIntegrated Coastal ManagementIntegrated Natural Resource ManagementIntermediate ResultWorld Conservation Union (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)Integrated Water Resources ManagementJomo Kenyatta Public BeachJomo Kenyatta Public Beach Self Help GroupKenya Association of Hotel-keepers and CaterersKenya Coastal Management InitiativeKenya Coastal Management ProgramKenya Forestry Research InstituteKenya Marine ForumKenya Marine and Fisheries Research InstituteKenya Wildlife ServiceLocally Managed Marine AreasLand Use PlanningLaikipia Wildlife ForumMonitoring and EvaluationMunicipal Council of MombasaMemorandum of UnderstandingMid-Term Review5

NBENEMANature-Based EnterpriseNational Environmental Management AuthorityNGONon-Governmental OrganizationNKNMKNature KenyaNational Museums of KenyaNRMNatural Resources ManagementOCAOrganizational Capacity AssessmentPFM planPILSPMPParticipatory Forest Management planProject Implementation LettersPerformance Monitoring PlanPRAParticipatory Rural AppraisalSO5 Strategic Objective 5SOWTDScope of WorkTourism DepartmentTISTTTFThe International Small Group and Tree Planting ProgramTourism Trust FundUNDPUnited Nations Development ProgramUNEPUnited Nations Environment ProgramURIUniversity of Rhode IslandUSAIDUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentWRMWater Resources Management6

Executive SummaryThis report presents the results of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the USAID Kenya Forestryand Coastal Management Programs, undertaken between August 5 and September 8, 2006.The review focused on two of USAID/Kenya’s three natural resource management (NRM)program sub-sectors, namely the Forestry Range Rehabilitation and EnvironmentalManagement Strengthening (FORREMS) program (2003-2008) and the Kenya CoastalManagement Program (KCMP, 2004-2007). The programs are being implemented through ninedifferent grant agreements – either project implementation letters with specific Government ofKenya (GoK) institutions or cooperative agreements with an NGO or private sector group.The scope of work for this assignment called for a ‘robust review’ of FORREMS and KCMPactivities focusing on six project elements that we present as a major section of the TechnicalDiscussion chapter of this report. Implementation of these activities has involved a partnershipamong government agencies and non-government organizations (NGOs) working closely withcommunity-based organizations (CBOs) to address economic, policy, cultural and humanresource capacity challenges of conserving significant biologically diverse areas within Kenya.The review team identified a number of priority issues:• Inadequate level of devolution of authority to CBOs necessary to achieve the biodiversityconservation and joint management objectives desired.• Need for strategic approach to bring stakeholders of specific landscape systemstogether for common conservation and management goals.• System structures for program management, grants administration and oversight impedeeffective implementation. Specifically, existing systems delay field-basedimplementation and hinder the development of harmonized work plans andempowerment of community members who are most directly linked to the naturalresources needing protection and improved management.• Independence has not been sufficiently fostered in nature-based enterprises (NBEs) andCBOs. GoK and NGO partners have been involved on a long-term basis supporting thedevelopment of these organizations and have not developed the clear exit strategies thatwould require establishing this independence.• Need to revise indicators for better monitoring of results and impact assessments.FORREMS and KCMP programs have benefited from capable and committed field programpersonnel from both GoK and NGOs. The level of public-private partnership involvement hasbeen significant; field teams composed of GoK support personnel, community leaders andNGOs are working together to solve complex problems linked to biodiversity conservation, withsocioeconomic benefits for communities beginning to appear. Both programs have alsooperated under constraints that have limited on-the-ground impact. As a result, the real benefitsto communities have yet to be fully realized. With some refocus and change in overall programmanagement and coordination, significant benefits and impact should be possible by FY 2010.Findings and ConclusionsLinkages to Biodiversity ConservationAchieving biodiversity conservation goals and objectives is a long-term endeavor and mustinclude the direct participation of all major stakeholders within an identifiable, geographicallylimited area where common interests can be developed and maintained over time.7

While USAID has managed KCMP and FORREMS as two distinct programs, they are inessence one biodiversity conservation program in which: 1) biodiverse landscapes should betargeted; 2) biodiversity threats should be identified using a threats analysis; 3) interventionsshould be designed to respond to the threats; 4) interventions should be implemented at a scalewhere biodiversity results can be achieved; and 5) biodiversity conservation should bemonitored using appropriate indicators. Currently the programs are not being managed thisway. Furthermore, some FORREMS and KCMP activities fail to fulfill the biodiversity earmarkcriteria.Sustainable Nature-Based Enterprise (NBE) DevelopmentNBEs are being developed under FORREMS and KCMP without a consistent analysis of theircompliance with USAID’s requirements for biodiversity programming and without anassessment of their sustainability or the scale of their impact relative to threats being posed tobiodiversity. While various NBEs being supported by USAID are making valuable contributions,the benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation or livelihood are unclear, because:1. they have not been quantified (e.g., lack of biodiversity monitoring),2. they are not projected (e.g., business plans were not developed in beginning),3. they are not considered (e.g., biodiversity impacts of NBEs were not explicitlyconsidered in the formulation of the enterprise) or4. they have not yet been realized (e.g., NBE has not yet been fully launched).The scale of NBEs and the benefits they generate may be small relative to the threats posed tobiodiversity conservation and/or the funding provided. Therefore, questions regarding NBEeffectiveness as part of conservation efforts remain unanswered.A threats-based approach would focus the NBE approach since the NBE interventions could bedesigned to minimize those threats. Use of a landscape systems approach will help to ensurethat critical biodiversity areas are captured and interventions are designed to keep thelandscape intact and to maintain or rehabilitate landscape linkages. Awareness-raising aboutbiodiversity conservation is an important supporting role that NGOs can continue to play.NBEs are being developed without a clear definition of their ownership structure and thereforewithout a clear foundation for the long-term enterprise governance. This ambiguity can reducethe effectiveness of partnerships between beneficiaries (such as producers and communities)and sponsoring organizations (NGOs and government entities). It can also sow the seeds forconflict over the distribution of any surpluses created by an NBE once it becomes successful.When the primary partners do not have a clear understanding of the ownership of the enterprisethey are building, there can be conflicts in their respective interests about how to manage theenterprise and its direction. Ownership structure defines not only who receives whatpercentage of any surplus but also defines who has the authority to make decisions regardingthe fate of the business. Clarifying the ownership structure of an NBE from the very beginningcreates transparency, gives clearer incentives to each of the stakeholders and provides theframework for an effective partnership. As such, a well-defined ownership is part of the formulafor creating successful NBEs.Additional business analysis and technical advice are needed, such as, applying a value-chainperspective; developing business plans and offering business management advice. Betteranalysis and expanded business services would strengthen the efforts to create viable NBEsthat generate added value. First, bringing a “value chain” perspective to an existing or proposedNBE provides the means for understanding better the challenges and opportunities that face theNBE. Specifically, a value chain perspective considers all of the factors that, linked together,8

form the basis of creating value in a particular market. In simplified terms, the value chain iscomposed of the following linkages: Input Suppliers Producers Processors/ Packagers Marketers/RetailersConsumers. These links can be examined both individually andcollectively to see where value can be created -- by eliminating obstacles (e.g., lack of technicalexpertise for better modes of processing); by reducing constraints (e.g., inadequate capitalfinancing) or by pursuing opportunities (e.g., links to domestic and international buyers andmarkets). Furthermore, a value chain perspective helps promote a market-driven orientation tothe NBE.Champions of the new NBEs have emerged in a number of cases. A more systematicapproach could be taken to identifying and encouraging champions, organizing the NBE ventureto take advantage of their contributions and, as appropriate, putting more resources at theirdisposal. These steps could enhance the chances for success in the NBE and can create abasis for scaling up the enterprise.Policies Related to Biodiversity ConservationForestry Policy: participatory forest management (PFM) pilots are in line with the new policy;however, if PFM interventions are not supported during this interim period (before the Forest Actis fully operationalized), the momentum to implement PFM will be lost.Coastal Policy: USAID has supported policy development in the coastal/marine sector withoutsignificant results.Cross-Cutting IssuesMany of the activities already initiated with women and youth groups within the prioritizedlandscapes deserve continued support but should be scaled up to a level sufficient to becomefinancially feasible and can also have an impact on the threats to biodiversity within thelandscape.The landscape systems approach is the ideal model to achieve results in many cross-cuttingthemes within specific ecologically important and threatened areas. Major conflicts amongstakeholders competing for the same natural resources may be prevented or significantlydiminished through building consensus and a common vision for their landscape.Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and ReportingCurrent SO 5 indicators for FORREMS and KCMP should be significantly revised oradministered differently. This revision includes a greater focus on biodiversity conservationgoals (i.e. reduced threats to biodiversity as well as better defined, expected impacts for targetcommunities who will benefit from community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)engagements (for example, PFM) and NBEs. The implicit program hypothesis is that activitiesbeing undertaken will lessen threats to both protected areas and other natural resources,including forest and marine reserves. Current indicators provide little useful information of thiskindFORREMS and KCMP indicators fail to relate their impact on biodiversity conservation.Possible biodiversity indicators are: (1) a flagship/keystone species that can be monitoredannually and that gives an indication of overall ecosystem health; (2) one or more species offish that gives an indication if fishermen’s improved practices (net size) are having positiveeffects on fisheries; (3) the state of coral along the coast and (4) the number ofencroachments/illegal activities reported in target protected forests.9

To develop revised indicators, beneficiaries should be involved in a participatory process toidentify indicators that have meaning for local people and that are realistic and measurable.Future assessments and decision making with respect to indicators should include reviews withlocal community leaders within the target landscapes. If local people, who are the focus of betterand more sustainable NRM practices, do not see improvement or change for the better, thenpositive impacts will not occur. Program leaders need to understand how local landscapestakeholders will recognize ‘improvement’ to their resources base and the benefits they receive.Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) has already begun a process of this kind with Mukogodo Forestgroup ranch communities that could be adapted to other program areas in the future.Program Management and ImplementationFORREMS and KCMP use the same general approach. Both programs are working withcommunities to operationalize the policy and regulatory framework of specific CBNRM/PFM comanagementactivities to generate employment, increase incomes and conserve biodiversity incritical forest and marine areas.The mechanisms used to finance activities under these two programs have inhibited programperformance. Neither USAID/Kenya’s “Advance System” nor “Reimbursement System” offinancial accounting has worked well with GoK institutions – though KWS and KEFRI havemanaged better than FD. GoK partners have been trying to provide on-the-ground support toboth the FORREMS and KCMP program partners but have been seriously compromised byfunding delays and logistic constraints. Furthermore, it was very difficult, sometimes impossible,for all partners to prepare and execute joint work plans within common sites of intervention. Forexample, while PACT Kenya received its funds through the Coastal Development Authority(CDA), Nature Kenya and LWF both had cooperative agreements directly with USAID thatpermitted implementation of their own activities but FD did have access to funding during thepast twelve months.In contrast, future funding should flow though a central program unit for FORREMS and KMCPthat will be responsible for overall coordination of activities, including managing sub-agreementsfor clearly agreed’ upon services from GoK agencies (FD, KWS, KEFRI, NMK, Marine Service,CDA, Fisheries Department), NGOs and yet-to-be identified private sector enterprisedevelopment agencies and experts. This outcome can be accomplished by either enlargingcooperative agreements with current program partners or by issuing a competitive procurementfor an overall program leader. Such a procurement should result in more efficient managementof the combined activities and reduce USAID’s management burden. Under this arrangement, itis important that the central program unit ensure that each relevant partner is involved inapplicable work plan preparation so that funds can be appropriately allocated by programleaders.An existing NGO could serve as a management entity to provide overall coordination for aFORREMS and KCMP program unit, rather than rely on USAID’s direct management or on GoKmanagement. The Review Team considered Nature Kenya and Laikipia Wildlife Forum as theinstitutions in the best position to coordinate USAID funding and activities within their respectiveareas, if a two-pronged approach were to be adopted for future combined FORREMS andKCMP activities. Ideally, however, overall program coordination for a combined FORREMS andKCMP program would be led by a single organization.Numerous pilot studies, general resource management plans and inventories of biodiversityresources have been completed within both FORREMS and KCMP but no clear business or10

marketing plans exist and efforts to operationalize existing management plans have barelybegun. Doing so must be a priority for future efforts.RecommendationsLinks to Biodiversity ConservationUse a landscape, threats-based approach, concentrating efforts to achieve greatestimpact, and targeting the following landscapes:1. Mt. Kenya Forest: Meru or Nyeri District;2. Mukogodo Forest and four group ranches;3. Arabuko Sokoke Forest, expand to include Mida Creek (including mangroves), Watamuand Malindi Marine Park, and associated private and public stakeholders and4. One additional landscape, depending on resources available and ability to fulfilllandscape approach criteria: Wasini-Shimoni-Vanga: including Wasini Island, KisiteMarine Park and Mpunguti Marine Reserve and Shimba Hills NR; Diani-Chalelandscape: including Kaya Diani fishing community and Diani-Chale Marine Reserve; orMombasa coastal landscape, including Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach (Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu), Mombasa Marine Reserve and Park.A landscape should be targeted based on the following criteria: (1) its biodiversity value; (2)potential for creating a forum of stakeholders willing to engage and work as partners towards acommon goal and (3) potential to address threats to biodiversity conservation and produceresults. Local partners would define landscape boundaries in a participatory fashion.Ensure interventions fulfill the biodiversity Congressional earmark language.Continue to raise awareness of biodiversity conservation, especially to ensure that thoseinvolved in NBEs have the information they need to build sustainable use into theirenterprises.Sustainable Nature-Based Enterprise (NBE) DevelopmentApply a more strategic vision and more systematic evaluation of candidate NBEs inUSAID investment decisions in order to assure highest “return”.Each NBE should be evaluated in terms of its actual or projected performance relative to thefollowing criteria:a. Contributes to biodiversity conservation;b. Improves livelihoods of poor communities (especially those who live nearbiodiversity resources and/or use them);c. Can be sustained by given date without outside subsidies andd. Is replicable.Clarify ownership of NBE (and therefore, profit-sharing) earlier in the establishment ofthe business. Ideally this should be done right at the beginning to create transparency and giveclear signals to all stakeholders. Long-term roles of sponsoring organizations (NGOs) need tobe specified in the business plan for each NBE to define whether they are interim facilitators orlong-term partners.Expand business services to new and existing NBEs (identification of markets; linkageswith domestic and international buyers and enterprise management).Find “champions” – entrepreneurs - and assist them to scale up.11

Policies Related to Biodiversity ConservationGive priority to completing Community Action/Operational Plans and signing PFMagreements between CFAs and the FD so that Action/Operational Plans are ready to beimplemented once FD finalizes Forest Act implementation guidelines.Support development of a “forum” as an outgrowth of the landscape approach in thecoastal/marine environment (AS Forest expanded landscape); and once empowered,depending on resources and capacity, facilitate the forum to promote the development ofa coastal-marine policy.Approach to Performance MonitoringCompletely revise or administer differently the 13 indicators currently being used by theFORREMS and KCMP programs under SO5 to provide clearer guidance to assesssuccess of field activities in meeting program objectives.Revise current SO5 indicators to reflect more impact upon target communities who are tobenefit from the program’s CBNRM engagements (for example, PFM plans) and NBEs.Review indicators with community leaders within the target landscapes.Document success stories.Create at least one biodiversity indicator per landscape that addresses key threats.Program Management/Coordination and Contract AdministrationReformulate institutional arrangements with partners to improve program management,coordination and contract administration.OPTION #1 (RECOMMENDED): Establish one program management unit for FORREMS andKCMP with a commitment to engage in the landscape systems approach using a membershipforum of stakeholders to develop a common vision and work plan along the lines of theapproach applied by LWF..This proposed institutional reformulation would significantly reduce USAID SO5’s managementburden. Ideally, there should be one program management unit for both FORREMS and KCMPthat will coordinate one overall work plan for each landscape system, monitor, report, disbursefunds, and liaise between USAID and partners in various field programs. This organizationwould have funds specifically committed to support GoK institutions at the field implementationlevel, as well as funds for making grants or subcontracts for specific tasks to NGOs and privatesector entities identified to accomplish specific tasks within a common vision for specificlandscapes, as recommended above. This option could be implemented in one of two ways:OPTION #1A: Expand an existing Cooperative Agreement to assume responsibility foroverall program coordination.OPTION #1B: Solicit competitive proposals from national and international organizations.Expanding an existing grantee’s mandate to become the overall program coordinator offersseveral advantages, including ease of startup (by virtue of having a program already in place)and a record of relevant experience. The MTR Team noted attributes of the LWF program thatcould be adapted to other landscapes, which would reinforce and support the work of NatureKenya and other existing grantees. The objective of having one program manager, as is12

proposed under this option, is to retain the current set of grant activities while also betterorganizing their collective results.Soliciting competitive proposals, as proposed under Option #1B, opens up more options forobtaining program management expertise. It would, however, require more time andprocessing than the option of expanding an existing Cooperative Agreement.Figure 1: Option #1USAIDOne One Contractor Contractor or GranteeGrants Management UnitProgram Manager #1 Program Manager #2GOKNGOsNBEsMukogodo Nyeri or Meru Landscape Eastern Coast Landscapes Arabuko-Sokoke/Mida Creek/Malindi/Watamu MP,MR LandscapeOPTIONAL:(1) Wasini –Shimoni-Kisite Landscape(2) Diani-Chale Landscape(3) Mombasa (JKPB) Coastal LandscapeOPTION #2: Channel all combined FORREMS/KCMP funding activities through one institutionin and around Mt. Kenya area (including Laikipia) and another at the coast. In this scenario, themost appropriate institutions would be LWF and Nature Kenya; with a commitment by all toengage in the landscape systems approach being implemented by LWF – using a ‘membershipforum of stakeholders’ to develop a common vision and work plan.13

Figure 2: Option #2USAIDLWF Nature KenyaGrantsMgmtUnitGrantsMgmtUnitGOKNBEsNGOsGOKNBEsNGOsMukogodo Nyeri or Meru Landscape Eastern Coast Landscapes Arabuko-Sokoke/Mida Creek/Malindi/Watamu MP,MR LandscapeOPTIONAL:(1) Wasini –Shimoni-Kisite Landscape(2) Diani-Chale Landscape(3) Mombasa (JKPB) Coastal LandscapeUnder either option:LWF and NK currently have Cooperative Agreements with USAID and both have developedaccounting/financial systems that are sound but that would need to be expanded.A separate source of funding for GoK institutions would be necessary, and managed directly byUSAID, for any central level support USAID might wish to provide these institutions. Such fundswould not be for field-based implementation activities.A grants management unit or units would be established under the cooperative agreementholder(s) and would serve GoK, NGO and other grant recipients using separate pools offunding, with the objective of getting funds as close to ‘ground level’ as possible so that they canbe accessed faster, when needed, as part of one work plan for each landscape system.Use local expertise whenever possible and provide increased opportunities for localpeople whose capacity has been developed through the program as a first option beforebringing in outside expertise. Increased responsibilities for local individuals give theopportunity to expand their roles as leaders within their communities, as well as extend theirexpertise more regionally.Within specific geographic areas of effort – focus, focus – rather than continue tosupport so many partners and so many activities. Focus on a few programs that have realpromise of impact by the end of the project (FY 2010). Build on best work accomplished to dateand move from planning phase to implementation.Continue funding capacity building in GoK, where a clear service can be defined, andwhere it is specifically linked to CBNRM or a NBE. A special pool of funding should beavailable at the national level for GoK logistical support targeted to specific outputs within thelandscape approach. Priority support should be given to fast-tracking FD ability to operationalize14

existing PFM plans. This support could perhaps be channeled through the soon-to-be recruitedUSAID-supported transaction advisor who will be supporting FD’s transition to a parastatal.15

Mid-Term Evaluation: Kenya Forest and Coastal Management Programs1.0 IntroductionThe timing of this review is significant from several points of view. The Government of Kenya(GoK) has recently passed new policies, which could significantly impact the relationshipbetween the Forest Department (FD) and local communities – with an emphasis ondecentralization and local community empowerment to manage natural resources. The FD is intransition to a parastatal mode much like that of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), using aservice-oriented approach with the ability to charge for its services. The Kenya ForestryResearch Institute (KEFRI) and the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) each have new five-yearstrategic plans, which need to be taken into account in future FORREMS and KCMP activities.Finally, USAID itself is undergoing a new relationship with the U.S. State Department.While USAID Kenya’s SO #5 strategic framework continues to be a foundational and guidingvision for overall NRM and biodiversity conservation program development, recent directivesfrom the newly created Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance (S/F) in WashingtonD.C. will lead to new changes – including changes to the USAID Kenya’s new CountryOperational Plan (COP) and overall Strategic Framework for Africa, completed in September2005 and described below. 1 The new Director has charged USAID missions to frame all futureprogram activities within a new paradigm, which is still evolving. Five priority objectives havebeen defined, 2 and USAID/Kenya’s biodiversity/NRM program activities may be placed underthe overall label of “Investing in People”. Natural Resource Management and Biodiversityconservation programs will be integrated within the program. Before this, USAID had completeda newly developed Strategic Framework for Africa in 2005. New five-year strategy statementsand corresponding three-year operational plans being developed are now on hold until thesenew directions are further clarified. This review will provide new information andrecommendations which we hope will assist USAID as it establishes priorities for future NRMand biodiversity conservation efforts within Kenya. Coming changes will provide newopportunities and directions, some of which are explored in Annex 4.1.1 USAID Strategic Framework for AfricaIn September 2005, USAID presented its new thinking about the role of foreign assistance forAfrica. 3 First of all, U.S. strategic and foreign policy interests are placed “front and center, inkeeping with USG recognition that U.S. economic development is one of the three tools offoreign policy”. 4 Foreign aid would be provided within a new framework with recognizedcountries in “transformational development” and countries in “fragile states”. Approaches wouldbe different for each. USAID/Washington would also, in the future, provide a more directionalrole to country-level USAID missions ‘to ensure that funds would be allocated where thegreatest likelihood of significant impact’ could be realized. Kenya is a ‘transformational1 This new office will serve as an ‘umbrella leadership structure for aligning and coordinating all foreign assistancepolicy, planning and oversight’, with the USAID Administrator reporting to State. This brings USAID and the StateDepartment together in a new relationship intended to reduce duplication, ad hoc decision making, fragmentation ofactivities and approaches and bring greater coherence, strategic impact, and accountability among programs,policies, and goals (State Department cable dated May 13, 2006).2 (1) Peace and Security, (2) governing justly and democratically, (3) investing in people, (4) economic growth, and(5) humanitarian assistance (Ambassador Randall Tobias, Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, Administrator ofUSAID, “Focusing U.S. Foreign Assistance to Support Transformational Diplomacy”, May 2006.3 Strategic Framework for Africa, USAID, Washington DC, September 28, 2005.4 Strategic Framework for Africa, page 1, 2005.16

development’ country. Among the priorities: supporting the effectiveness of African institutionsto promote ‘a vibrant private sector and democratic governance’. Crosscutting issues such asgovernance, gender, urbanization, youth, and lessening the impact of HIV/AIDS must beaddressed, as appropriate, in all programs. Use of indigenous expertise is strongly encouragedand efforts to leverage private sector involvement and donor harmonization and coordinationconsidered critical. Finally, key U.S. foreign policy goals for Africa were defined to include: (1)improved human rights and good governance, (2) expanded trade and investment though theprivate sector, (3) counter-terrorism, (4) conflict prevention and mitigation, (5) HIV/AIDSprevention, and (6) natural resource protection.1.2 USAID Kenya Country Operational PlanUSAID/Kenya’s most recent Strategy Statement, submitted to USAID/Washington in December2005, covers the period 2006-2011. The Mission’s Operational Goals are to: (1) foster ahealthier, better-educated, and more productive population and (2) increase the effectiveness ofKenyan institutions in promoting a vibrant private sector and democratic governance. WhileKenya has the foundation for sustainable development, it also demonstrates elements offragility. The country is surrounded by fragile states and has porous borders; many of itscitizens have been marginalized politically, socially, and economically over a sustained period oftime; it has significant populations that are food insecure; and there is a history of localizedconflicts over resources. Conflict mitigation, humanitarian assistance, and support tomarginalized and vulnerable populations are therefore integrated into the Kenya countryprogram. The Strategy Statement identified a number of development constraints. 51.3 Biodiversity EarmarkThe FORREMS Program and KCMP are entirely funded through the Congressional earmark forbiodiversity. With the increasing scrutiny of funds attributed to the biodiversity earmark(including a possible audit by the General Accounting Office, as earmarks in the health sectorhave experienced), USAID/Kenya will be held to a more stringent definition of activities that fallunder the earmark.5 (1) Democracy and Institutions of Governance: Kenya’s democratic promise has been tarnished by the realitythat personal rule within the executive continues to eclipse the rule of law.(2) Weak Governance and Corruption: Kenya has experienced moderate economic growth over the past twoyears and it has adopted a number of economic reforms. Nonetheless, the country continues to suffer from aneconomic malaise, caused in part by mismanagement and corruption.(3) Low Levels of Investment: The levels of new foreign and domestic investment have not increased as muchas expected following the 2002 elections; low productivity-low income is directly related to low labor productivity,which is correlated with the educational and health status of the population.(4) HIV/AIDS: HIV/AIDS affects the well being and productivity of the individual, the human resource lossesweaken governance and national institutions, and the need to treat those affected, including orphans and vulnerablechildren, results in the re-allocation of public and private resources away from productive investment.(5) Rapid Population Growth: Each year more than a half million young Kenyans enter the labor force, and theformal sector is only able to absorb a small percentage of this growth with most people finding employment either inthe informal sector or on increasingly small parcels of agricultural land.(6) Gender: While progress is being made in addressing gender inequities as evidenced by the efforts to expandeducational opportunities for girls and the debate over women’s rights associated with the recent constitutionalreferendum, there is much to be done.(7) Environment: Kenya’s extraordinary biodiversity and its habitats are under continual threat from thepressure of rapidly increasing human populations and the illegal exploitation by loggers, fishing trawlers, andpoachers. The quality of many agricultural, grazing, migratory, and forested areas is declining due to overuse andencroachment. Farming continues to expand into marginal areas, resulting in decreased yields, degradation of land,and increased conflict among resource users.17

A process is being put in place whereby operating units will self-certify that their biodiversityattributions meet the code and regional bureaus will be held responsible for assuring thisstandard and for maintaining documentation. 6 The USAID geographic Bureau EnvironmentalOfficer will be required to review and concur that activities attributed to the biodiversity earmarkare appropriate. According to FY 2006 USAID/EGAT/B guidance, to be considered abiodiversity program, the following criteria must be met (emphasis added):• The program must have an explicit biodiversity objective. It is not enough to havebiodiversity conservation result as a positive externality from another program.• Activities must be identified based on an analysis of threats to biodiversity.• The program must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation.• Site-based programs must have the intent to positively impact biologically significantareas.1.4 Mid Term Review (MTR): Purpose, Methodology, and Scope of Work1.4.1 Purpose:As described in the original Scope of Work (SOW) for this mid-term review, USAID/Kenya hasrequested that the review team:(1) Review the relevance of USAID’s forestry and coastal management activities and results relativeto programming changes in USAID’s NRM sector. USAID/Kenya NRM program will focus onconservation of biodiversity.(2) Provide recommendations for re-orientation and modification of approaches, and priorityactivities, as necessary, so that the Mission’s forestry and coastal management programsoptimize their effectiveness during the remaining years and fit within the biodiversity guidelinesand the new Africa Bureau Strategic framework; and(3) Review the effectiveness of the overall implementation approach, including use of severalpartners to implement the FORREMS and KCMP programs; potential means for enhancingoverall program implementation effectiveness, including identification of activities that can beintegrated; and at the same time achieve the Mission’s overriding objective of conservation ofbiodiversity.This review is therefore expected:“To revisit the assumptions, parameters, and expected results to be achieved under (USAID’s)on-going programs, with a view to revising the activities as appropriate to effectively respond toemerging issues and opportunities”. 71.4.2 Methodology:The PA Consulting, Inc. review team used a participatory and collaborative approach, throughfour phases. Phase 1 consisted of developing an understanding of the overall program underreview through developing an operational work plan at a joint meeting with USAID and programstakeholders, leading to a Schedule and Work Plan (cf. Annex 6). 8 Phase 2 involved two weeksof data gathering and identification of key issues among stakeholders and community level6 April 2006 NRM sector council meeting minutes, USAID.7 USAID/Kenya Forestry and Coastal Programs Mid-Term Review Scope of Work, August 2005, p. 6.8 Initial meetings were held in Nairobi with program leaders of government departments (Forest Department, KenyaWildlife Service, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, National Museums of Kenya, NEMA, CDA), NGO partners(African Wildlife Foundation, Laikipia Wildlife Forum, Nature Kenya, PACT/Kenya), and USAID/Kenya SO 5 programmanagement about overall initial strategic directions and future plans. An initial version of the proposed Draft ReportTable of Contents was prepared, with each section assigned to specific members of the team to take the lead indrafting and coordinating input from the other members of the team. A proposed schedule of meetings and field visitswas discussed jointly with USAID and major stakeholders.18

project beneficiaries at each of the field implementation sites of both FORREMS and KCMPprograms along the coast, near Mombasa, and at sites around Mt. Kenya. 9Week four initiated Phase 3, which involved analysis of lessons learned and the preparation ofthe Draft Report. Phase 4 began with the review team’s PowerPoint presentation anddiscussions of key conclusions and recommendations from the Draft Report with sixteenprogram leaders of USAID and stakeholder groups managing and implementing FORREMS andKCMP. Those present included key representatives from USAID, Forest Department, KenyaWildlife Service, Nature Kenya, Laikipia Wildlife Forum, KEFRI, PACT Kenya, and TISTKenya. 10 The Draft Report was submitted to USAID for review.1.5 The Mid Term Review (MTR) TeamThe evaluation team consisted of three US professionals with extensive developmentexperience, backstopped by PA Consulting support in draft reviews and final documentformatting. No team member had any direct prior experience with either the FORREMS orKCMP programs in Kenya. As such, the team was able to conduct a truly objective examinationof the program and its performance and impact to date. The team members brought thefollowing expertise and had the indicated roles:• Dr. Richard A. Swanson, economic anthropologist, project management specialist andreview team leader, focused on overall monitoring and evaluation/assessmentmethodology, with a secondary focus on institutional and organizational capacity buildingneeds and internal USAID management of this program.• Ms. Karen Menczer is the MTR Team’s biodiversity specialist with the primary focus ofassessing the links and contributions of FORREMS and KCMP to biodiversityconservation; and a secondary focus of assessing the programs’ support to GoK’senabling environment for biodiversity conservation.• Dr. Greg Michaels, environmental economist and business management specialistfocused on constraints, opportunities, and models for enhancing competitiveness ofnature-based enterprises and economic analysis of natural resources use andmanagement.• Mr. Walter Weaver of PA Consulting provided technical review and quality control fromthe home office. Mr. Rick Thibault served as the branding specialist to providedeliverables that are fully compliant with USAID branding and accessibility requirements.This team collectively brought to this review many years of professional experience with ‘whatworks’ and best practices learned in CBNRM programs and NBE development activities frommany parts of the world, but specifically in Africa. It was through this prism that FORREMS and9 One team member visited ICIPE’s activities in Kakamega to bring in new ideas from programs there. To assessimpact, document performance, and develop recommendations, the team sought to corroborate its information baseby using multiple data sources to develop conclusions and recommendations. The team obtained its primary datathough reading of available project documentation (cf. Annex 3), interviews with both key individuals and focus groupdiscussions (cf. Annex 5), and direct field observations (cf. field notes). The team compiled extensive informationfrom these meetings.10 At this meeting, we sought to build ownership of the final product through verbal and written comments, reviews,and questions from participants. Requests were made to participants for elaboration or modification of issues ofconcern so that they might be considered and possibly integrated by the Team Leader into the Final Report in Phase4. The draft report was given to USAID/Kenya, who furnished electronic copies to the above key partners for theirreview. With the subsequent departure of the team from Kenya, the Team Leader received continuing input fromteam members who by this time had returned to their home bases, via – email communications - particularly withrespect to core conclusions and recommendations. USAID and other program stakeholders also sent comments ondraft and debriefing meeting issues.19

KCMP activities were observed and conclusions and recommendations drawn. Annex 8provides a brief summary of these ‘best practices’ as background.20

2.0 USAID/SO 5 ProgramUSAID Kenya’s Strategic Objective # 5 program includes three natural resource managementprogram sub-sectors – a continuing wildlife program (with PACT USA as a lead contractor) plusthe current FORREMS and KCMP programs. This Mid-Term Review focuses on the latter twoprograms.USAID Kenya has been a long-term supporter of Kenya’s rich biodiverse resource areas,through both GoK wildlife management programs and NGOs work with local communities inimproved natural resource management systems associated with wildlife (e.g. ZEBRA andCOBRA, and then CORE programs). Until FY 2001, the focus remained on wildlife. However,beginning in FY 2003, USAID Kenya initiated the FORREMS and KCMP initiatives, followinglessons learned from the CORE project. These programs were intended to ‘impact forest-basedenterprises and empower constituencies to implement the Environmental Management andCoordination Act (EMCA)’ of 2000. 11USAID initiated support to forestry and biodiversity conservation initiatives in Kenya in FY 2002,under both FORREMS and KCMP, to an increasing number of both public and private (NGO)institutions through its Strategic Objective #5: “Improved Natural Resources Management inTargeted Biodiverse Areas by and for Stakeholders”. Geographic focus was in:(1) Jomo Kenyata Public Beach activities, Fishermen and Boat Associations (KCMP)(2) Diani Chale: Mwaepe Fishing Group (KCMP)(3) Wasini Island, Woman’s Board Walk, with Shimoni and Kisite (KCMP)(4) Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve (FORREMS)(5) Mukogodo Forest (FORREMS)(6) Mt. Kenya Forest Reserves (selected)(FOREMS)(7) Laikipia-Samburu (FORREMS)(8) Taita-Taveta (FORREMS)The current SO 5 framework (cf. Figure 3 below) specifies funding from FY 2001 through FY2010, with the end date of September 30, 2011. In developing its recommendations, theReview Team therefore assumed this four-year future time frame to undertake possiblemodifications and reorientation of current program activities. Beginning in the current fiscal year,funding levels were requested at about $6 million/year within this Strategic Objective. Thisfunding would support the on-going efforts of FORREMS, KCMP, as well as on-going activitieswithin the wildlife sector (with KWS, and others), and provide a ‘transaction advisor’ within theForest Department to assist in their evolution into a parastatal, along the KWS model. Currentfuture projections, within this SO, for FORREMS and KCMP are about $1 million/year (about$700,000 for FORREMS, and $300,000 to KCMP). 12All GoK institutions on both FORREMS and KCMP have received their funding through ProjectImplementation Letters (PILS), which initially were based on a 3-month revolving fund system,but were then changed to a reimbursement system (based on receipts). Nature Kenya andLWF had cooperative agreements directly with USAID, while TIST received GlobalDevelopment Alliance funding.Long-term expected impacts of the current SO 5 include (1) an increase in the number ofhectares benefiting from sustainable natural resource management practices in targeted areas,11 Forestry Report, USAID Kenya Activities, (undated).12 Actual funding levels received by USAID Kenya can be very different from those requested or anticipated,depending on annual appropriations by Congress and changing socio-political realities.21

and (2) an increase in the number of concerned community households and individuals activelyassociated in these efforts. USAID seeks:(1) “Vibrant, community-based, civil society organizations that advocate for biodiversityconservation and who are undertaking conservation measures;(2) An improved legal and policy framework to support natural resource management;(3) A national biodiversity strategy developed, and 1.5 million hectares put under improvednatural resources management, and(4) Constituencies for public/private sector investment in natural resource management.” 1313 Strategy Statement for USAID/Kenya: FY 2006-2010, December 2005, p. 6.22

2.1 SO # 5 FrameworkFigure 3. SO 5 RESULTS FRAMEWORKStrategic Objective 5Improved natural resources managementin targeted biodiverse areasby and for stakeholdersIntermediate Result 5.1Site specific initiativesfor NRM implementedoutside protected areasIntermediate Result 5.2Encroachment andsubdivision reduced[SO7, MOA, MLS]Intermediate Result 5.3Improved managementof protected areasIntermediate Result 5.4Environmental policyand legislative reformadvancedIR5.1.1Appropriate NRM tools andtechnologies adoptedIR5.1.3Improved localdecision-making based onmonitoring and analysisI.R5.3.1 Improvedavailability andanalysis of data fordecision makingIR5.1.2Integrated communityNRM plans establishedIR5.1.4Nature-focused businesspractices improvedIR5.1.5Organizational capacityof target CBOs improvedI.R 5.4.2 Constituenciessupporting improvedNRM strengthenedI.R5.4.1 Policydepartments withinselected GoKenvironmentalinstitutionsstrengthenedUSAID to takematerial responsibilityIRs to which USAIDcontributes but is notprimarily responsibleThis SO 5 Strategic Framework provided the overall matrix through which both FORREMS andKCMP program activities were to be monitored and eventually evaluated. Indicators developedwere supposed to help in program management and assessing eventual impact, and reportingto USAID Washington. The effectiveness of these indicators to provide the necessary23

management and monitoring information will be discussed under the M&E sections below and inAnnex 2.2.2 Forestry Range Rehabilitation & Environmental Management StrengtheningFORREMS is a five-year (2003-2008) program that is strengthening GoK institutions byproviding capacity building, technical assistance, and material support to improve forestmanagement, rangeland conservation, and environmental management. It is working withcommunity NR user groups to build organizational capacity so they can actively participate inconservation and in development of NBEs. SO 5’s support to community beneficiaries isintended to provide incentives and build advocates for improved NRM and biodiversityconservation.FORREMS’ geographic focus areas are: Mukogodo Forest and associated group ranches; Mt.Kenya Forest Reserve and associated communities; Arabuko Sokoke Forest and associatedcommunities (Kenya’s north coast); and other areas (none visited by the MTR Team), includingRumuruti forest ecosystems, Aberdares, Ngong Hills, and Taita Hills. (See Table 2 in thefollowing section).Government partners are: Forest Department, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, KenyaWildlife Service, National Museums-Kenya, and National Environmental Management Agency.NGO partners are: Nature Kenya, ICIPE, Ideal Business Links, TIST, Laikipia Wildlife Forum,and [soon to be awarded] Green Belt Movement. Annex 7 contains descriptions of theseorganizations.2.3 Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP)KCMP is a three-year (2004-2007) program to enhance coastal management and combatpressure along Kenya’s coastline, using an integrated coastal area management (ICAM)approach. KCMP strengthens ICAM outside marine protected areas to demonstrate tangiblegovernance and community benefits; expands stakeholder capacity and participation in theICAM process; and builds a constituency that can support and catalyze coastal policy dialogue.USAID supports NBE development in the coastal region as a means to alleviate poverty andreduce the pressure on natural resources, with the ultimate aim of conserving the coastal zone’scritical biodiversity; and mitigates environmental impacts to the coastal and marine environment.KCMP targeted three geographic sites: Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach; Diani-Chale; and Shimoni-Vanga (including Wasini Island). Site-specific KCMP interventions within these zones aredescribed in Table 2.USAID partners in the KCMP are the Coastal Development Authority (CDA, a GoK parastatalinstitution) and PACT-Kenya. CDA provides overall KCMP project coordination and monitoring;provides TA in coastal development; and with the wider KCMP team, assists in implementationof activities. PACT-Kenya provides capacity strengthening in organizational and enterprisedevelopment.2.4 FORREMS and KCMP: Key Themes and Underlying AssumptionsThe following assumptions and themes underlie FORREMS and KCMP:24

(1) Poverty is the main driver of unsustainable and illegal natural resource exploitation. “Povertyis a direct result of natural resource degradation that comes from too many people makingunsustainable demands on a resource base that is shrinking in quality and quantity. Povertyalso perpetuates and drives this degradation”. 14(2) Expanding human populations, especially into marginal areas, is leading to increasingconflicts—human-wildlife conflicts and conflicts among human natural resource users(3) When stakeholders are empowered to make decisions about natural resource use—andwhen they are actually benefiting from natural resource use (tangible benefits derived fromcommercial or subsistence uses, and intangible benefits mainly related to cultural values), theywill become better stewards of the environment and can be the strongest advocates forbiodiversity conservation.(4) Severe constraints restrict opportunities to expand and diversify rural incomes. There arefew economic pursuits apart from subsistence farming in which rural residents are engaged; forexample, 69 percent and 82 percent of the rural populations in Mt. Kenya and Malindi coastalzone respectively depend on subsistence farming for their livelihoods.(5) Livelihoods must be diversified to relieve pressure on the natural resource base.(6) Conflicts over natural resources and the inter-related nature of the natural resource basepoint to the landscape as the appropriate level within which to work with stakeholders andbeneficiaries, and at which to manage conflicts and resources.These common themes run through both FORREMS and KCMP and are the basis forinterventions. The underlying assumption, or hypothesis, of both programs is that byempowering stakeholders to participate in the management of the natural resource base, and tobenefit from natural resources, they will become better stewards of the environment andadvocate for conservation. To achieve greatest impact, both FORREMS and KCMP embracethe landscape approach, although with varying degrees of success (as described below).As defined in the FORREMS Activity Approval Document, a ‘landscape’ is a geographic areathat contains inter-related ecological, social, institutional, and enabling conditions. 15 The WildlifeConservation Society defines a landscape as, “an area large enough, with the appropriatecomposition, configuration, and connectivity of habitats to support functional populations of thebiodiversity present and to preserve ecosystem services for both wildlife and people.” The MTRTeam adds to that definition: ‘including the appropriate stakeholders, both socio-economic,cultural, and political’.A landscape approach “forces an integrated analysis of a target area’s characteristics, of itspotential for development and of the subtle relationships that influence the health of thewhole”. 16 In a landscape approach, a landscape area is targeted based on its biodiversity value;stakeholder willingness to engage and work as partners towards a common goal; and potentialfor interventions to address threats to biodiversity conservation—the potential to produceresults. Key to the landscape approach is that a promising landscape is targeted andinterventions are at appropriate scale to address the identified threats. All stakeholders—GoK,14 USAID/Kenya, AAD 200215 USAID/Kenya, June 12, 200216 USAID/Kenya, June 12, 2002.25

NGOs, CBOs, and the private sector, including the full range of stakeholders with subsistence,commercial, and cultural interests in the area (hotels, banks tourism agencies, etc.) - aremobilized and incorporated into the decision-making process to arrive at common purposes andgoals.26

3.0 Technical Discussion3.1 Linkages to Biodiversity Conservation3.1.1 FORREMSThe roles of the FORREMS partners are shown below.Table 1: Roles of the FORREMS PartnersInstitutionForest DepartmentKenya Forest Research InstituteKenya Wildlife ServiceNational Museums-KenyaNational EnvironmentalManagement AuthorityNature KenyaIdeal Business Links(Subcontractor)ICIPE (Sub-awardee)TISTLaikipia Wildlife FoundationRole in FORREMSKey partner for forest management, conservation, and monitoring; partner with communitiesin PFM pilots; provides TA to communities and NGOs.Research and inventories and dissemination of research findings and technologies tocommunities and NGOs; monitoring NRs; providing technical advice to CBOs and NGOs inPFM and rehabilitation techniquesM and E role for FORREMS’ partners; key partner in wildlife management and conservationin forest areas.Provides technical guidance in the development of Arabuko Sosoke NBEs, and assists inidentifying markets; organizes and strengthens ASF CBOs working in NBEs.Mitigates and monitors environmental impacts of development activities andimplements/facilitates rehabilitation of degraded lands; builds capacity of DistrictEnvironmental Committees and District Environmental Officers.Program management and coordination of FORREMS’ activities in Arabuko Sokoke Forest;works with CBOs to strengthen their organizational capacity so they can more effectivelyengage in PFM and NBE development.Provides targeted assistance to link products to marketsProvides technical expertise in product development and value added technologiesMobilizes community groups to plant trees and track status for the bio-carbon market; andempowers groups to undertake community development initiatives.Mobilizes Mukogodo group ranch communities and strengthens their capacities to engagein improved rangeland and dry forest management and development of NBEs; and providesoverall direction for management and conservation activities in the Mukogodo area.Depending on the site, FORREMS’ interventions include producing natural resourcesmanagement plans; conducting natural resource inventories; producing business plans forNBEs; capacity building for GoK institutions and CBOs that are working in NBE developmentand NRM rehabilitation of rangelands and natural forests; on-farm tree planting; establishingnurseries; developing water sources, working with CBOs to strengthen their capacity to developand manage NBEs; preparing pilot PFM initiatives and advancing policies on forestry and theenvironment. As part of its institutional strengthening, FORREMS provided important logisticalsupport (computers, furniture, vehicles) and infrastructure to the FD, KWS, KEFRI, and NEMA.Situation1. Landscape Approach and Biodiversity ValueAs stated in the FORREMS AAD, implementation should “embrac[e] the landscape approach.”FORREMS target sites were chosen based on a landscape system, and in part, because oftheir biodiversity value. Briefly, the landscapes and the biodiversity value at each site aredescribed below:27

(1) Arabuko Sokoke Forest (ASF) is the last large remnant of north coast forests that oncedominated Kenya’s coastal fringe. It contains globally important biodiversity, regulates freshwater flow to Mida Creek and associated mangrove forests, which provide fish nurseries andimportant habitat for birds, migratory and resident, and acts as a nutrient and sediment trap thatprotects the Watamu coral reef. As described in the FORREMS Performance Monitoring Report(2005), the Watamu/Arabuko system “is the only place in Kenya where reef, beach, creek, andforest occur together in this way, offering considerable potential for a landscape approach….”The Arabuko Sokoke Forest has been targeted to pilot PFM. It is recognized that “the long termfuture of the Forest depends crucially on the support of the local community and their leadersand politicians for its conservation”. 17(2) Mukogodo Forest Landscape: The Mukogodo Forest Landscape covers a total ofapproximately 58,496 hectares, and is made up of the Mukogodo Forest Reserve (30,189hectares) and four surrounding group ranches (28,307 hectares), Kuri Kuri, Makurian, Lekuruki,and Il Ngwesi. The Mukogodo Forest Landscape is one of the largest dryland forests remainingin Kenya. As described in the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, the area is richin plant life and wildlife. The Mukogodo landscape consists of closed forest, closed woodland,open forest, open grassland, open scattered trees, very open scattered trees, and degradedgrasslands. It contains 66 families of commonly used plants. 18 Wildlife includes many speciesof interest to tourists. Thirty-four large mammal species, 11 small mammal species, and 209bird species are found there. The Mukogodo Maasai have had a long relationship with theMukogodo area and the forest provides dry grazing pasture for the local Maasai community andthe neighboring pastoral community. It is the one of the few forests in Kenya where thecommunity has been managing the forest without a permanent presence of the FD. Accordingto local FD representatives, the Mukogodo Maasai have been doing this quite well. The forestremains intact.(3) Northeastern and Eastern Mt. Kenya Forest Blocks (Marania, Mucheene, Upper and LowerImenti, Meru, and Ruthumbi in Meru and Nyeri Districts) is a montane forest area rich inbiodiversity and a critical water catchment area, containing significant economic and culturalvalue. FD manages significant plantation resources in the Mt. Kenya forest. Bamboo, montanegrassland, and moorland can also be found here. The area is rich in wildlife species and isconsidered an ‘Important Bird Area’. The main threats to the forest are from fire, livestockgrazing, vegetation damage by elephants, and pressures and human-wildlife conflict from thegrowing human population in forest adjacent communities.According to the FORREMS AAD (June 2002), the forests on the lower northeast and easternslopes of Mt. Kenya are part of the newly established Mt. Kenya National Reserve. FORREMSinterventions at Mt. Kenya (see Table 2) are implemented based on administrative units (Meruand Nyeri Forest Districts and their associated Forest Stations). While a political delineation,the Meru and Nyeri Forest Districts would be considered two separate landscapes for means ofimplementing and monitoring activities.2. The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST)The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST) is a FORREMS partner thatworks outside the target Mt. Kenya landscape with the intent of off-setting pressure on naturalforests by encouraging woodlots and other tree plantings to replace collection of firewood,17 Kipepeo Butterfly Project, Gede, Malindi, 2006.18 Mukogodo Focal Area Team, June 200628

cutting for construction material, and charcoal production. A relative late-comer to theFORREMS ‘family of partners’, TIST, like other program NGOs, has had its programsconstrained by FD’s lack of expected logistic support at the field level and delays inimplementation of CBO forest management plans that could have permitted efforts in restorationof degraded lands around Mt. Kenya currently controlled by FD. As a result, efforts havefocused on the small individually controlled plots of community small groups outside protectedareas and forest reserves. Nevertheless, growth in the number of partnering small groups, withtheir well-tended nurseries 19 and closely monitored trees, has been fairly dramatic.3. Congressional Biodiversity Earmark and Threats AnalysisFunding for FORREMS is attributed to the U.S. Congressional biodiversity earmark. Thebiodiversity earmark language states that activities should have a “primary objective ofconserving biodiversity in natural and managed terrestrial aquatic ecosystems. Activities shouldbe identified through an analysis of the threats to biodiversity.” In addition, the four criteria listedin Section 1.3 must be fulfilled to comply with biodiversity earmark requirements.Threats to biodiversity have been identified in Arabuko Sokoke, Mukogodo, and Mt. Kenya, andin general are related to poverty, increasing populations and wildlife-human conflicts andconflicts among human natural resource users, unsustainable use of natural resources, and fire(mainly in Mt. Kenya). TIST activities aim to respond to biodiversity threats emanating fromillegal and/or unsustainable collection of firewood, charcoal production, and cutting of wood forother purposes.4. Participatory Management and NBE Link to BiodiversityPFM pilots in Mukogodo, ASF, and Mt. Kenya are designed and implemented to respond tospecific biodiversity threats and are clearly linked to biodiversity conservation. Besides benefitsto communities from natural resource use and management, FD benefits by having communitysupport for tree nursery management and tree planting, clearing areas for windbreaks, and tostrengthen FD forest guards by providing community guards.Ongoing and potential NBEs include: butterflies/pupa, mushrooms, honey production, silkproduction, aloe, and tree nurseries (Arabuko Sokoke); coral garden boardwalk, fishermenassociations and dhow operator groups (at Diani Chale and Wasini Island- Kisete); at pasturebulking, herbal pharmacy, eco-lodges, honey production, opuntia, and aloe (Mukogodo Forest);and tree nurseries, tourism, fuel wood collection, and honey production (Mt. Kenya).Local community leaders of the Dida Forest Management Plan committee should be given thefinancial support to help other communities along the peripheral zone of the entire reserve toaccomplish similar plans. This group’s plan should be the first one to be formally accepted andput into action – possibly by January 2007 – by the Forest Department, which has developed agood working relationship with these people in joint partnership and management of theadjacent forest reserve.5. Biodiversity Monitoring/Indicators19 Those viewed by the Review Team during their field visits to several of the best TIST ‘small groups’.29

FORREMS indicators are: #1, land use change in target areas (hectares) and #2, number ofstakeholders benefiting from involvement in improved NRM. FORREMS partners stated thatdata collection is difficult and felt that the indicators failed to reflect actual results.6. Biodiversity Awareness-RaisingMost stakeholders at the three target sites (ASF, Mukogodo, and Mt. Kenya) were aware ofbiodiversity conservation and threats to conservation. Those involved in NBEs were alsoaware, although many lacked information on sustainability issues and the link of NBEdevelopment to biodiversity conservation.Analysis and Conclusions1. Landscape Approach and Biodiversity ValueFORREMS has targeted landscapes that contain critical biodiversity. Arabuko Sokoke Forestand adjacent communities are part of a landscape system that includes Mida Creek and Malindiand Watamu Marine Park and Reserve. FORREMS interventions have targeted ASF andadjacent communities, but not the downstream landscape components. Since ASF activitiesare part of FORREMS rather than KCMP, the focus has been the forest. The landscapesystems approach would expand boundaries of the ASF area to include marine and coastalcomponents, including mangroves. This approach would ensure the inclusion of significantcoastal and marine biodiversity, which is affected by upland activities (ASF), and would bringadditional stakeholders to the table, including many in the private sector with interests in (andimpacts on), the coastal-marine ecosystems. Greater private sector inclusion would also bring apotential for financial resources (such as the major hotels, for example, Hemingway’s), whichwould be required for a sustainable landscape forum.Mukogodo Forest and the four group ranches combine to form a clear landscape system. Thearea contains critical biodiversity that is threatened. Stakeholders (community, GoK, NGOs,CBOs, and the private sector) have been mobilized and are working towards common goals;and interventions are designed to reduce threats to biodiversity.Mt. Kenya’s landscapes (Nyeri and Meru) contain critical and threatened biodiversity. Clearinterventions (fire management, fencing to protect land from elephants, tree nurseries, andPFM) have been identified to reduce biodiversity threats. However, due to the early stage ofPFM and also, to a gap in USAID funding, stakeholders have not yet been fully mobilized andspecific PFM interventions have yet to be identified.TIST activities are implemented outside the Mt. Kenya landscape but aim to decrease pressureon Mt. Kenya forest resources. From the MTR Team’s site visits and interviews, it appears thatTIST activities were not well incorporated into Mt. Kenya FORREMS activities and the link withbiodiversity threat reduction in the Mt. Kenya landscape is limited. Considering the need toconcentrate on target landscapes to reach a scale where real results are produced, TISTactivities should be refocused to become part of the Mt. Kenya landscape systems.Furthermore, if TIST activities are contributing to threat reduction in the Mt. Kenya landscape,this impact has not been demonstrated and should be.2. Congressional Biodiversity Earmark and Threats Analysis30

The biodiversity earmark requires that four criteria be fulfilled. Except for criterion #3, theprogram must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity (see 4 below), FORREMSinterventions at the three sites comply with biodiversity earmark requirements.TIST activities are in essence agro-forestry interventions In regard to the biodiversity earmark,the program does not monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation. Site-basedprograms are not positively impacting biologically significant areas. TIST promotes the benefitsof trees to small landowners and communities — providing a food source, improving soil,decreasing erosion, regulating temperatures and providing construction material and fuel wood.Where this approach has been applied, it appears to be having a positive impact.3. Participatory Forest Management and NBE Link to BiodiversityPFM, although only at a pilot stage, is already building a constituency for biodiversityconservation and sustainable use of resources. CBOs in many sites visited by the ReviewTeam are waiting impatiently for FD authorization for their legal right to begin to implement thePFM plans already completed.4. Biodiversity Monitoring/IndicatorsFORREMS’ indicators fail to provide information on biodiversity conservation results and revisedindicators, preferably one for each landscape, should be formulated.5. Biodiversity Awareness RaisingThese efforts are especially important for NBE participants to ensure they have information onresource sustainability and that they are aware of the links of the NBE with biodiversityconservation.6. Appropriate ProgrammingFor both FORREMS and KCMP, there must be:• An explicit biodiversity objective. It is not enough to have biodiversity conservation resultas a positive externality from another program.• Activities must be identified based on an analysis of threats to biodiversity.• The program must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation.• Site-based programs must have the intent to positively impact biologically significantareas.3.1.2 KCMPKCMP’s interventions include organizing and strengthening CBOs that work on coastal issues,coastal area management, and NBEs; securing two fish landing sites, and constructinginfrastructure at the sites, including slipways, fish depots and improved sanitation systems;constructing two modern fishing boats at a cost of about $100,000 each; constructing 32 rainwater harvesting (RWH) systems with a total capacity of 397,000, and training masons in RWHconstruction; strengthening the Kenya Marine Forum (KMF) as a community trust responsiblefor advocacy on marine environment issues for the Kenyan coast; supporting the development31

of NBE business plans and implementing target business plans; rehabilitating sand harvestingsites; and supporting the production of management plans and action plans. Theseinterventions are described in Table 2 below, showing the areas where KCMP is working andthe specific activities taking place at each site. Team notes also provide greater details for thesites visited.FORREMS and KCMP at a GlanceTable 2 below shows the target landscapes for FORREMS and KCMP interventions. Theoverall landscape is shown in bold and the major components of that landscape, whereinterventions are taking place, are listed below. The activities being implemented and partnersworking at each site are shown.Table 2: FORREMS and KCMP at a GlanceGeographic Area Activities PartnersFORREMSArabuko Sokoke Forest Train forest guards, forest management planFD, KWS, KEFRILandscape-Mida Creek and -Marine No activities implementedReserve (Mida)-AS Forest Peripheral Rehabilitate sand mining sites: tree planting and fencingNEMAZone-AS buffer zone Organize communities, develop NBEs, pilot PFMFD, KWS, NK, NM-KcommunitiesMungungani Forest Support gazettement NEMAMukogodo Landscape Mukogodo Forest Integrated Management Plan FD, KWS, KEFRI, NEMA, LWF,AWFGroup Ranches (4) 5 water projects; 2 eco-lodges; NBE development, rangelandFD, KWS, KEFRI, NEMA, LWFrehabilitationMt. Kenya Landscape Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan KWS, FDMeru District Fire management; forest rehabilitation FD, USFSNyeri District (includes Fire management; forest rehabilitationFD, USFSAberdares)Other forestsRumuruti ForestecosystemsNgong Hills Fire management FD, USFSTaita HillsKCMPMombasa coastal Strengthen KMF; support of annual marine events; coastal change KMF, CDAlandscapeJomo Kenyatta PublicBeach(Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu)Mombasa MarineReserve and ParkDiani-Chale landscapeKaya Diani fishingcommunitydataOrganize CBOs, conduct beach traders survey; form JKPB Trust andManagement; support to artisanal fishing enterprise: construct fishingboat, construct fish landing site and associated infrastructure; twodeep freezers for fishermen; business plans and implementation oftarget BP actions; open up public access road, landscaping.Encourage appropriate fishing practices (Marine Reserve)Strengthen KMF; support of annual marine events; coastal changedataConstruction of fishermen meeting banda and sanitation block,securing fish landing site-Mwaepe Fish Depot; empowerment ofartisanal fishers to develop enterprise, two deep freezers forfishermen, boat construction; improvement of beach access road;rehabilitation of DCMT office, members trained and strategic plan;business plan for eco-tourism and other enterprises; training inCDA, Fisheries Dept, KWS,PACT-KenyaFisheries DepartmentKMF, CDAFisheries Dept, CDA,PACT-Kenya32

Diani-Chale MarineReserveWasini-Shimoni-VangaShimoni-VangaWasini IslandKisite Marine Park andMpunguti MarineReserveShimba Hills NRbusiness management; RWH tanksEncourage appropriate fishing practices and sampling/analysis ofwater quality.Strengthen KMF; support of annual marine events; coastal changedataZonal projects steering committee; identify gaps in baselineinformation; community ecotourism enterprise; LMMA-3 interventions;Shimoni Slave caves developed as ecotourism activity, RWH tanksLeveraged funding for eco-tourism development, bee keepingactivitiesNo activities implemented, though the Kisite Private Boat (Dhow)Operators Association (KIPBOA) is actively seeking linkage within asupporting structure.No activities implementedFisheries Dept., CDAKMF, CDACDA, Fisheries Department,PACT-KenyaCDA, PACT-KenyaSituation1. Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) and the Landscape ApproachKCMP uses the ICAM approach, which encompasses a network of inter-related coastal, marine,and upland resources and the associated political, social, and economic components. TheICAM approach is intended to be a holistic management tool for the sustainable development ofcoastal and marine resources incorporating multi-sectoral and multi-institutional collaboration.The ICAM process involves: selection of an area; resource mapping; stakeholder identification;issue identification through consensus; integrated planning; program preparation; programadoption; funding; program implementation; and monitoring and evaluation. 20The ICAM approach and the landscape approach are somewhat similar. KCMP pilotinterventions are scattered over three coastal-marine landscapes. Marine Reserves and Parksbenefit indirectly from KCMP activities since many of the threats to these areas originate fromland-based activities.In the ICAM approach, biodiversity value is one criterion used to identify target areas andinterventions. The KCMP target sites contain significant biodiversity (sea turtles, mangroves,coral reefs, and the “big five of the ocean”- dolphins, whales, whale sharks, manta rays, anddugong), as well as commercial fisheries, and other key economic activities, and are linked in anetwork of marine, coastal, and upland resources:• Diani-Chale, on the South Coast of Kenya, is rich in biodiversity, including coral reefs,sea grass beds, mangroves, sacred forests, abundant marine and terrestrial wildlife,including sea turtles, dolphins, colobus monkeys, and rich in endemic species of birds,other wildlife, and plants. It is also an area with historic buildings, subsistence farms,plantations, artisanal fishers, and tourism attractions—white, sandy beaches andbeachfront hotels. The Diani-Chale coastal forest is fragmented and highly threatened.The Diani Marine Reserve, covering over 250 hectares, is located in this area.• Shimoni-Vanga-Wasini Complex: contains rich marine life, including endangered seaturtles, dolphins, whales, and economically valuable commercial fisheries. Coral reefs,sea grass beds, and mangroves are found offshore. Kisite Marine Park and Mpunguti20 ICAM-KCMP Power Point presentation, August 15, 2006.33

Some KCMP interventions have been implemented in response to significant threats tobiodiversity, for example, promoting improved fishing practices and discouraging the moredestructive methods. However, the contribution to biodiversity conservation from theinterventions mentioned above (as well as others) is questionable.3. Participatory Management and NBE Link to BiodiversityKCMP’s participatory management opportunities are limited due to KWS’s managementjurisdiction over the mangrove resource (in partnership with FD) and marine parks and reserves(in partnership with Fisheries Department).Wasini Island’s ecotourism enterprise has a direct link to biodiversity conservation.Nonetheless, this link could be strengthened by raising awareness of biodiversity conservationamong Wasini Island stakeholders (see 5 below) and by strengthening the eco-tourism activity(for example, cleaning the village and the near-coast and beach where tourists disembark fromtheir boats). The Kisete Private Boat Operators Association with their dhows for transportingtourists to the nearby marine park and reserve, as well as Wasini Island, is a key private sectorstakeholder group that has not been adequately integrated into what could be a Wasini-Kisitelandscape forum.The Vikwathani Maenderero Group’s proposal to construct an eco-tourism facility couldcontribute to biodiversity conservation (however, it is unclear what threats the initiative isaddressing). In addition, the link of this intervention with coastal and marine biodiversityconservation is weak. They are not part of a locally defined ‘landscape forum’ group that arecollectively addressing the biodiversity threats of their area.The link between biodiversity conservation and enterprise development for the hawkers, tubers,and boat operators is also weak. While income generation initiatives can indirectly have aneffect on biodiversity conservation, to be attributed to the biodiversity earmark, a more direct linkis necessary. The beach cleaning activities of the hawkers and tubers are a commendableeffort but not one with a direct effect on biodiversity conservation. These individuals could havea role within a better-defined ‘landscape forum’ group for their area.The fishermen described their self-regulating activities and Fisheries Department described thepartnership with the fishers to manage and monitor fishing. However, the link betweenproviding modern fishing boats, infrastructure at fish landing sites, and business plans tobiodiversity conservation is unclear. The link could be strengthened with improved datacollection and monitoring of biodiversity indicators (see 5 below).The biodiversity earmark language recognizes that NBE development activities can beattributed to the biodiversity earmark. USAID FY 2006 guidance states that “protected areamanagement (including marine conservation); community-based natural resource managementwhere conservation is the primary goal; and enterprise-based conservation” can be attributed tothe biodiversity earmark.4. Biodiversity Monitoring/IndicatorsKCMP indicators 1 and 2 do not provide an adequate picture of the program’s biodiversityimpact.36

5. Raising Awareness of the Importance of Biodiversity ConservationFishermen, tourist dhow boat operators, ecotourism operators, hawkers and tube vendorsexpressed an interest in and awareness of biodiversity conservation.3.1.3 Recommendations1. Interventions should focus and concentrate on landscape systems where: (1) criticalbiodiversity resources are present; (2) stakeholders are willing to work together in partnershipsto achieve a joint vision of biodiversity conservation within a framework of sustainabledevelopment and (3) responses to biodiversity threats have good potential to produce success.2. While KCMP’s three target sites contain rich biodiversity, the limited funding availablefavors focusing efforts on landscape systems that fulfill the three criteria cited above.Interventions should be at a scale where on-the-ground results can be realized, rather thansupporting numerous pilot activities.3. Future interventions should be designed and implemented with the aim of fulfilling thebiodiversity earmark language. Using a biodiversity threats-based approach and designing andimplementing activities in response to threats would result in greater biodiversity impact.4. A stronger link between NBEs and biodiversity conservation should be made. Supportto NBEs can contribute to biodiversity conservation by: scaling up so that they provide actualopportunities to diversify the economic base and relieve pressure on natural resources andensuring a direct link of enterprise development to biodiversity conservation. This link can bemade by relieving pressure on the natural resource base and/or addressing specific threatsand/or building advocates for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity monitoring and continuedbiodiversity awareness-raising should be a part of NBE development.5. Possible indicators are: (1) a flagship/keystone species that can be monitored annuallyand that would give an indication of overall ecosystem health; (2) one or more species of fishthat would give an indication if fishermen’s improved practices (net size) are having positiveeffects on fisheries; and (3) the state of coral along the coast.6. Efforts in biodiversity awareness-raising are commendable. They should continue beingdirected at stakeholders within the target landscapes and supporting interventions that willstrengthen community capacity to participate in natural resource management and GoK effortsto implement PFM.7. TIST activities must fulfill the biodiversity earmark requirements by responding toidentified biodiversity threats (in addition to other criteria, Section 1.3); and work with partnerswithin target landscapes. TIST management clearly wishes to work in such collaboration.8. It is important to continue to support PFM in Mukogodo, Mt. Kenya, and Arabuko SokokeForests. These efforts are responding to threats from growing human populations and pressureon the resource base; fire; overgrazing; and wildlife-human conflicts; and illegal and/orunsustainable use of resources. FORREMS should target landscapes (Mukogodo Forest andfour group ranches; Mt, Kenya, Nyeri or Meru Districts; and Arabuko Sokoke/Mida Creek andassociated marine parks and reserves) and support the PFM process at these target sites. Inthe case of Mt. Kenya, PFM would be supported at the forest station level (Community Forest37

Association-Community Action Plan level produced at the forest station level). SFS support forfire management should continue forest-wide, across both forest districts.9. Apply the landscape definition adapted by the MTR Team by combining the WCSdefinition (an area large enough, with the appropriate composition, configuration, andconnectivity of habitats to support functional populations of the biodiversity present and topreserve ecosystem services for both wildlife and people) with the requirement that theappropriate socio-cultural, economic, and political components be included. Landscapeboundaries are for all partners to define together.10. Focus future FORREMS and KCMP efforts more consistently within a landscapesystems approach, using the Laikipia and Mukogodo Landscape systems model in bringingtogether all key stakeholders into ‘a fee-paying membership forum’ to develop a common visionof what needs to take place to address NRM and biodiversity conservation priorities within thezone. This permits better harmonization of work-plans of various stakeholders within thelandscape and avoids duplication and permits greater coordination at all levels. Developing asimilar forum for other landscape systems would be ideal (e.g. Arabuko-Sokoke/MidaCreek/Marine Park/Reserve landscape, Wasini-Shimoni-Kisite Landscape, possibly Diani-ChaleLandscape), each with their adjacent marine parks and reserves.11. Target the following landscapes:Central Kenya Landscapes(1) Mukogodo Forest: Landscape approach targeting Mukogodo Forest and associatedfour group ranches with interventions at the group ranch level, specifically in support ofOperational Plans and targeting interventions that are aimed at reducing threats tobiodiversity.(2) Mt. Kenya Forest: Landscape approach targeting Meru or Nyeri District. Support forinterventions aimed at reducing threats to biodiversity at the forest station level insupport of CFAs and CAPs. USFS fire management interventions can continue forestwide.Focus on a few Forest Stations and their CBOs, and rather than try to cover allthe Forest Stations and CBOs within the district. Major deciding criteria should be abilityto completely scale up activities within one Forest Station before moving to another.Coastal Landscapes(1) Arabuko Sokoke Forest: Expand landscape to include Mida Creek and WatamuMarine Reserve and Malindi Marine Park and associated stakeholders. Interventions shouldbe aimed at reducing threats to biodiversity.(2) Target up to one other landscape based on available resources and potential to fulfilllandscape criteria.• Diani-Chale landscape: including Kaya Diani fishing community and Diani-ChaleMarine Reserve• Wasini-Shimoni-Vanga: including Wasini Island, Kisite Marine Park and MpungutiMarine Reserve.• Mombasa coastal landscape, including Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach (Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu), Mombasa Marine Reserve and Park (considered by Review Team asextremely difficult prospect).12. Unless directly linked to a landscape systems approach of the kind observed atMukogodo Landscape, discontinue all new water capture efforts and leave these to other38

programs that can deal with them on a much more aggressive and replicable manner, with cleartargets (i.e. 30 % of all households with cisterns in specific geographic areas in water deficientareas).3.2 Sustainable Nature-Focused Business DevelopmentNature-based enterprises (NBEs) can contribute or support biodiversity conservation when:1. Alternative livelihoods are created and/or reinforced that reduce income generationthrough extraction of biodiversity resources (“mining”). Example: cultivation of naturalcamphor by populations who formerly relied more on forest resources for incomegeneration.2. Domesticated production replaces production made possible through “mining”biodiversity resources. Example: mondia cultivation.3. Income generation occurs through non-extractive (sustainable) use of biodiversityresources. Example: beekeeping in forest.The following business initiatives, currently operating or being initiated, have varying degrees oflinkage to biodiversity conservation. USAID funding is being or has been provided to thoseactivities marked with an asterisk (*):Table 3: Nature Based Enterprises• Ecotourism: lodging * • Ecotourism: attractions * • Butterfly pupae *• Beekeeping * • Silk: wild * • Silk: domestic *• Natural camphor cultivation • Mondia cultivation • Aloe vera *• Aloe secundiflora * • Tree planting * • Fishing *• Fish market * • Boat operators * • Beach activities *• Rainwater harvesting * • Casuarina * • Opuntia (Prickly Pear) *• Elephant dung paper * • Herbal pharmacy * • Oyster Mushrooms *3.2.1 FORREMSSituation1. The Kipepeo Butterfly Project, managed by NMK, after 14 years has been held upregionally and internationally as a ‘model’ of community based natural resource managementand leader in ‘nature based enterprises’. It took until 2000 to break even with butterfly pupaeproduction and sales (2000), which are destined to butterfly houses in Europe, Japan, and theUSA. Production in 2005 was 200,000 pupae, for which markets were found for only 50,000.Butterfly farming currently focuses on 10 species, of which some bring considerably higherprices than others (but are also more difficult to raise). Prices could range from 3039

shillings/pupae ($0.42) to 100 shillings ($1.40). Any one-butterfly grower may have one or more‘butterfly huts’. The market appears to be seasonal – summer months in Europe, US, and Japanare best periods for sales. The Review Team observed several men and women, at differentlocations, carrying butterfly nets around with them – since butterfly are currently laying theireggs in the forest. 21 The total number of butterfly growers around AS has grown to anunsustainable number of close to 800. This has resulted in some groups closing theirmembership ranks, and also eliminating those who produce few pupae for those willing toproduce more and higher quality pupae. New market outlets are needed. Kipepeo, with itsvarious initiatives, appears to be helping approximately 5% of the forest adjacent communities,according to information cited in one of its proposals. The Review Team was told that amongthe butterfly pupae farmers there were several who had become outstanding leaders in theircommunities – and actually led their community groups in this endeavor. A couple of these wereeach producing about 10% of total production in the project.2. Nature Kenya has established the concept of a common marketplace for all NBEs inArabuko Sokoke (bee-keeping, butterflies, silvi-culture). The marketplace for AS products isbeing developed. They have butterfly and honey networks (CBOs, formed into networks, andthese are models for other NBE CBOs). All networks would be linked to the market with acommon brand (Arabuko Sokoke) and a percentage of the profits would go to forestconservation. With the activity committees, communities can take part in the governance in thebusinesses. The Kipepeo Project Community Based Organization, based at the Gede RuinsNational Monument near Malindi, is a partnership between government (provided the land forthe buildings), communities and NGOs. Kipepeo provides TA, QC, marketing, and its entirebudget is supported from income generated from sale of butterfly pupae.3. A private sector business person in the same area, unrelated to the Kipepeo project, hascaptured 50% of the market of Kenya pupae exports from this region and frequently purchasespupae from Kipepeo community butterfly pupae growers – though at a somewhat lower price.Kipepeo producers use this outlet themselves because this person pays cash for their pupae,while Kipepeo only provides a return when (and if) pupae are sold.4. NMK has a proposed $500,000 budget from USAID for a “butterfly house” in Mombasa,a place where some of the unsold pupae could be sent and used for expositions and to attracttourist who would pay a small fee to see them. Of this, $100,00 has already been obligated tostudy the feasibility of this venture.5. Misitu Women’s Group: bee keeping, farm forestry, bees, silkworms. 15 members.Merry-go-round loan system was the start of the group. NK started working with the group in2000 and used merry-go-round funds to get 10 hives, then were given 30 hives. With thedrought, bees left and then the group diversified to tree nurseries. In 2004, the group raisedcasuarina seedlings and sold 9000 (all in 1 consignment which was linked to them throughKEFRI). Casuarina has allowed the group to give loans to very poor households. Now theyare raising mulberry trees for domesticated silk worms. ICIPE has promised to buy the cocoons.Ultimately, there are plans for silk processing to take place at the Kipepeo ‘Market Place’.6. Honey: One problem is volume. 3000 liters is their limit so far, and markets need 10,000- 20,000 liters. The potential for beekeeping within this forest and mangrove landscape is very21 Competition in this industry is fierce. Some regions of the world produce more sought after species of butterfly. InTanzania, the butterfly egg laying season begins earlier than in Kenya, so they are able to get to the market sooner.Tanzania producers also, knowing the prices being asked for in Kenya, undercut these prices to gain market share.40

high and volume should not be a problem, if approached at the proper scale. Currently, ASbeekeepers cannot deliver this much so they are limited to the local and regional markets.Whether or not realistic international markets exist is unknown. Nonetheless, honey profitshave allowed community group beekeepers to give loans to the next level of poor households.These groups clearly understand the link between forest and bees, and they also volunteer fortree planting in the forest. Hives used include the Kenya Top Bar Hives and Langstroth(stacked super) hives. Consideration should be made to use the African Long Hive – betterthan Langstroth hives for management of bees when harvesting. Kipepeo plans for beekeepersto transport comb honey taken from their hives to the distant Kipepeo Market Place forextraction and bottling are flawed. Hand-operated extractors, already purchased with USAIDfunds under FORREMS, should be made available locally to different groups for the 1-2 daysneeded to harvest and extract locally their honey. Then the bulk honey, in closed plasticcontainers, can be more easily transported to the Kipepeo Market Place for further processing(if necessary), bottling and sale. In this form, beekeeper groups also have the alternative to selltheir honey to another outlet, depending on prices received. As it is, when asked, beekeepersdid not know, when asked, how much honey they had already sent to the Kipepeo Market Place– they only know the amount of ‘dividends’ they had been given follow delivery. This systemdoes not permit these beekeeper groups to become the entrepreneurs they could become inthis potentially important industry. They need to be linked to at least one of Kenya’s excellenthoney private sector honey companies, like Honey Care or Kenya Beekeepers, Ltd.7. Mushrooms: There are 8 mushroom huts around AS, 4 of which were funded by USAID.Forty-eight hotels have been surveyed for the use of mushrooms. All use button, pre-packagedmushrooms, not fresh, but a few hotels were interested in the fresh oyster mushrooms producedat AS. Hotel demand depends on the daily menu. Mushroom production began in May, andhotels’ high season starts July, so efforts are still being made to get hotels on board. So far only4 hotels have placed orders. Solar driers are also being explored, given the perishable natureof the product. One entrepreneur sells dried mushrooms to Nairobi markets and gets 500 KSper kg. Dried mushrooms can be channeled to humanitarian food aid markets. Future effortsmight consider what the local hotels or other potential consumers want (demand) in terms ofmushrooms, and seek to supply this rather than a product they clearly don’t seem to seek.8. Mida Creek ecosystem: MC Conservation Committee (MCCC). Encouraging ecotourismin this area through ASSETS: Arabuko Sokoke Ecotourism Scheme. The group has been ableto complete an attractive (and challenging) ‘swinging bridge’ board walk over mangroves, withexcellent interpretive signs along the way that provide information about surroundings whilewell-trained guides supplement this information with other relevant and interesting informationabout the areas, biodiversity, and cultural items. Seven guides work at the site. MCCC sellscrafts and coconut juice and raises money for bursaries from the ecotourism activities. There isco-management potential: rehabilitate mangroves with the community and then harvest forcommunity needs. MCCC guide for Review Team visit was highly qualified, knowledgeable andher knowledge/technique could be transferred to others. By comparison, the FORREMSsupportedWasini woman’s group ‘coral gardens boardwalk’ could learn much from the localcommunity managers of the Mida Creek nature trail, particularly in terms of interpretive signsand information sharing.9. TIST pays US 2 cents/tree/year (in quarterly payments for a period of 20+ years), whichis much higher than the market offers. TIST is hoping that in the future the carbon market willbring greater benefits. The idea is that communities will get 70% of the funds raised through themarket, and I4EI will get 30%. TIST works through a contract with the groups that identify whoowns the land and the trees. TIST monitoring data show that 750,000 trees have been41

established (not including nurseries with seedling). Survival rate at Naro Moru site is 90%(3,012 trees). The Review Team saw a demonstration, on a laptop linked to the Internet, howany specific TIST individual’s ‘small woodlot’ could be geographically located using GoogleMaps. It is possible to zoom in on these and actually see these sites, based on the GPScoordinates provided by the field-based quantifiers. This information would be key to potentialfuture sales and monitoring for the global carbon credit marketplace, verifying the actualexistence of these trees, and their continued survival.10. LWF’s approach with NBEs is to provide TA and does not place itself directly in thevalue chain. For example, with aloe, now that there is a national policy for aloe, LWF worksthrough the Kenya Aloe Working Group and with KWS to promote this option for growers. It canbe processed into aloe products and used for rangeland rehabilitation. LWF might researchaloe, provide this information to growers, provide starting capital as a co-financer, link producerto market, and/or fund a nursery. LWF does not buy, process or market aloe. KEFRI providesTA to the community on technical issues, and also empowers so the community can negotiatewith private sector.11. ILMAMUSI is an umbrella group that oversees several projects (or projects-to-be) meantto reduce pressure on the forest: water points, scouting (each group ranch has 2 scouts, butonly 1 ranch has been able to pay salaries), rehabilitation, income generation (eco-lodges,herbal pharmacy, nurseries, hay harvest and sell, aloe, opuntia, honey, beadwork, elephantdung to make paper), and conservation land set aside. For the eco-lodges, they are trying toincrease occupancy and look to alternative tourism ventures. Nursery is not active because ofa recent drought during which the community was not been able to collect seeds from the forest.The herbal pharmacy was started in April 2006 and is mainly used as a small herbarium nowsince the group has not been able to get nursery up and running. Socioeconomic survey hadshown that 85% of the population uses herbs for medicinal purposes.12. ILMAMUSI: Elephant dung paper making enterprise: located at a homestead,established by a European who buys the products to sell in Europe. Women make paper, butdo not know the market. They are isolated, and not linked to any other market than the one thatthe person who started the project is linked to. They depend on the project to bring shreddedpaper collected from Nairobi street boys.13. Il Ngwesi has an eco-lodge, the profits of which are supporting numerous communityactivities, including forest guards, schools, etc. A second eco-lodge is at Tasia. Two groupranches do not have eco-lodges or other tourism infrastructure.14. Mankurian Group Ranch: They have planted aloe, much of which has survived thedrought. The committee did not know what aloe is used for but ICIPE is expected to purchasethe plants. They are interested in a use for opuntia fruit since it is a nuisance plant, but they areunaware of what is can be used for.15. The FORREMS Performance Monitoring Report for 2005 indicates that communitiesreceived 2,421,015 KS (US$32,280) in financial benefits from the sale of nature-based productsand guiding fees as a result of the program. Of this total amount, 80,000 KS (US$1,067) wasgenerated from the sale of tree seedlings and 10,000 KS (US$133) from the sale of aloeseedlings in the Mukogodo Landscape. In Mount Kenya, 235,800 KS (US$3,144) wasgenerated from the sale of honey and seedlings. In Arabuko-Sokoke, 2,085,215 KS(US$27,802) was generated from ecotourism guiding and sales of seedlings and aloe suckers.A summary is provided in Table 4 below.42

The report also states that in addition to the $32,280 generated by direct project activities, theFORREMS project contributed to generating income from other activities: apiculture (293,560KS or US$3,904) and butterfly farming (1,566,516 KS or US$20,835). This same report alsoindicated that NBE implementation in Mukogodo did not take off as anticipated. Since NBEs arethe main source of incentives for community participation in NRM planning, this delayedimplementation had a negative impact.The most important NBE within AS was the butterfly pupae business, and individuals involved inthis business were also involved with FORREMS. Yet no data was provided about the specificamounts of financial benefits community individuals received from this endeavor – and howmuch was actually generated (as opposed to amount received by growers above). We were toldthat ‘about 50%’ of the income received from the pupae sold was returned to the grower. Wewere also told by Kipepeo NMK leadership that it is the profits from the sale of butterfly pupaethat is completing funding Kipepeo management expenses, plus subsidizing other NBEactivities (such as beekeeping). The Review Team in interviewing specific butterfly growers didobtain some information of this kind. We met with one of the butterfly growers, who himself, wasresponsible for almost 10% of the total figure sold, and who led a group of about 45 otherbutterfly growers in his community. We saw their meeting hall where figures were posted foreach member, over the past two years, by month, of the number of pupae delivered. When sold,dividends are paid into the group’s bank account, based upon the number of pupae that wereultimately sold by Kipepeo. Because the group leader made the successful effort to raise themore difficult (and valuable) species of butterfly pupae, he also had a higher percentage ofactual sales. He was producing about 100 pupae/week, representing about 10,000 shillings($139), (or about 5,000 high value pupae worth to him about $1,000/year (70,000-75,000shillings)). But the commercial value of his stock, when sold by NMK, was worth substantiallymore than this. This individual, and several others like him, are clearly highly motivated andcould become real entrepreneurs in their own right, if provided the support and contactsneeded. The leader mentioned he also had several mushroom huts that he carefully managed.At least 40% of receipts from sale of butterfly pupae to international buyers are kept by NMKand Kipepeo for its management purposes as well as subsidizing the costs of developing otheractivities. While this achievement may seem, at first glance, to be a social good, it may come atthe cost of keeping potential entrepreneurs of ‘business enterprise champions’ from developinginto sustainable private sector enterprises. In 2005, only 25% of the pupae collected wasactually sold (50,000 of some 200,000 this past year) for a total value of about $90,000. Thelimited sales stemmed from lack of sufficient markets. Of the 25% sold, a few outstandingcommunity entrepreneurs are supplying the bulk of those actually sold; yet these sameindividuals are not themselves realizing the potential profits they could.43

Table 4: Financial Benefits to Communities from Nature Based EnterprisesTable 8: Data Sheet No. 7 - Financial Benefits to Communities from Nature Based EnterprisesAmountFocal Area Name of Enterprise Type of BenefitGenerated(Kshs.)Amount paidout (Kshs.)Mukogodo Ethi Tree Nursery Sale of Seedlings 80,000 80,000Mt. Kenya Mucheene Bee Keepers Sale of honey 12,600 12,600Meru Forest Station(Apiculture, tree nursery) Sale of honey 43,200 43,200Sale of seedlings 120,000 120,000Mt. Kenya CommunityAfforestation andDevelopment Project - NaruMoru Sale of Seedlings 60,000 60,000ArabukoSokoke ASF Guides Association Guiding fees 112,500 75,000ASF Nursery Owners Sale of seedlings 1,778,925 1,778,925Aloe replicators Sale of Aloe suckers 231,290 231,290Ngong Hills Simwaru Landscapes Sale of seedlings 10,000 10,000Rumuruti Laikipia aloe nursery Sale of aloe seedlings 10,000 10,000Total (Kshs.) 2,458,515 2,421,015Total (US$) $32,780 $32,280Source: Performance Monitoring Report, FORREMS Programme Year 2005 (Draft, January 10, 2006).Analysis/Conclusions1. NBEs are being developed without a consistent analysis of their compliance withUSAID’s requirements for biodiversity programming, of their sustainability or the scale of theirimpact relative to threats being posed to biodiversity.Valuable contributions are being made by different nature-based enterprises (NBEs) beingpromoted and supported with USAID funds. However, the benefits in terms of biodiversityconservation or livelihood are unclear, either because:1. They have not been quantified (e.g., lack of biodiversity monitoring) or2. Are not projected (e.g., business plans were not developed in beginning) or3. Are not considered (e.g., biodiversity impacts of NBEs were not explicitly considered inthe formulation of the enterprise)4. Have not yet been realized (e.g., NBE has not yet been fully launched).The scale of NBEs and the benefits they generate may be small relative to the threats posed tobiodiversity conservation and/or the funding provided. Financial benefits generated are44

elatively modest (US$32,280, as reported above). Therefore, questions of effectiveness of theNBE as part of a conservation effort are still unanswered.A threats-based approach is useful whereby the most significant threats are identified and NBEinterventions are designed to minimize those threats. Use of a landscape systems approachwill help to ensure that critical biodiversity areas are captured and interventions are designed tokeep the landscape intact, maintain or rehabilitate landscape linkages. Awareness raisingabout biodiversity conservation is an important supporting role that NGOs can continue to play.2. NBEs are being developed without a clear definition of their ownership structure andtherefore without a clear foundation for the long-term governance of the enterprise. Thisambiguity can reduce the effectiveness of partnerships between beneficiaries (such asproducers and communities) and sponsoring organizations (NGOs and government entities). Itcan also sow the seeds for conflict over the distribution of any surpluses created by an NBEonce it becomes successful.In several cases observed in USAID and other initiatives in Kenya (ICIPE), NBEs based onnatural products (butterfly pupae for export, honey production, natural camphor (osciumum) andmondia) do not have clearly defined ownership structures or have ownership structures that arein a transient state until the NBE breaks even. As a result, certain critical decisions have beenmade by organizations that are not the ultimate owners of the enterprise (such as thesponsoring NGO) or have been postponed indefinitely. Of particular note, for example, aredecisions regarding the distribution of surpluses (profits). In the case of the Kipepeo project,surpluses generated from butterfly pupae exports were reinvested in other activities(beekeeping) although the butterfly producers would have preferred to receive those dividendsthemselves. In the case of ICIPE’s promotion of natural camphor for the product Naturub andmondia for Mondia Tonic, it appears that decisions about how to use any surpluses have restedwith ICIPE without a formal role being given to the producers themselves.Behind the ambiguity of ownership is the fact that these NBEs have been initiated andincubated by NGOs that have become long-term partners in the enterprise. It is logical thatthese organizations would exercise a substantial influence if not complete control of theseventures on at least an interim basis since it was the NGOs themselves that obtained the donorfunding to create, develop and, in some instances, maintain the NBEs. In some cases, theNGOs also provide their own resources in order to further the development of the NBEs. In thisrespect, the NGOs become investors in the NBEs they are fostering and therefore have a longterminterest in its success. Furthermore, the NGOs are often the guardians of a broaderagenda established with the creation of these NBEs, such as pursuing the conservation ofbiodiversity and promoting the generation of livelihood for poor communities. In the absence ofthe NGOs’ advocating such an agenda, the NBEs in question might evolve into purely profitmakingventures. That in itself is not a problem per se but it does imply the creation of adifferent type of NBE.In the broadest sense, NGOs and producers are partners in the NBEs they are creating, just asany ordinary business has partners who bring different resources and roles to the creation andsuccessful development of an enterprise. The NGOs can bring financial resources, technicalassistance and, in some cases, intellectual property and brand equity. The producers of thenatural product bring “sweat equity” (labor), land and other primary inputs. Together they arethe primary forces determining the success or failure of the new NBE.45

When the primary partners do not have a clear understanding of the ownership of the enterprisethey are building, there can be conflicts in their respective interests about how to manage theenterprise and about where it should be headed. Ownership structure defines not only whoreceives what percentage of any surplus but also defines who has the authority to make thedecisions regarding the fate of the business. From both of these circumstances seriousconflicts can arise if the partners have different objectives for the NBE. Producers may want tomaximize dividends and minimize the reinvesting of profits in the business while other investors,such as the NGO, may prefer the opposite. Either goal is legitimate but what ultimately definesthe “best interest” of the NBE follows directly from the definition of its ownership structure. Ifone group owns more than a 50% stake, that group can “call the shots” in the running of thebusiness.For this reason, it is important to come to an understanding of whose interests will be served inthe creation and management of an NBE. If it is indeed a partnership, as observed in thecases of most of the NBEs in Kenya, then the “best interests” of the NBEs are guided by thepreferences of both the producers and the sponsoring organizations. Clarifying the ownershipstructure of an NBE from the very beginning creates transparency, gives clearer incentives toeach of the stakeholders and provides the framework for an effective partnership. As such, awell-defined ownership is part of the formula for creating successful NBEs.3. Sponsoring organizations (NGOs and government entities) are staying involved in theoperation of certain NBEs on a long-term basis. In many cases, the justification for this type ofparticipation in an NBE has not been provided. Where the sponsoring organization was meantto serve as facilitator only on an interim basis, being involved for the long term clearly indicatesa problem. Nonetheless, there are other circumstances where long-term participation isappropriate (such as providing technical advice on an on-going basis). Specifying explicitlywhat role, if any, a sponsoring organization will play in an NBE as well as the rationale for thisparticipation provides an important benchmark for gauging the effectiveness of efforts to makethe NBE a viable proposition.Varying degrees of involvement of sponsoring organizations (NGOs) were observed in theNBEs investigated as part of this mid-term review. The most common case among the NBEsbased on natural products is one of extensive involvement by the sponsoring NGO (e.g. ICIPE)or GoK institution (e.g. NMK). There are also cases, though, where an NGO has played afacilitator role and exited the process once an enterprise was off the ground (e.g. LWF). Thiscircumstance appears to be more common among the ecotourism ventures that were observed.Each of these cases has merit but there can be a downside to each as well.It follows from the previous discussion of ownership structure that there are benefits to the longterminvolvement of sponsoring NGOs in the direction and management of an NBE. There arealso costs. The NGO’s involvement may create an obstacle for involving private sectorinvestors or institutions that bring valuable expertise and resources. Or, the NGO’s ongoinginvolvement could mask fundamental problems. For example, the long-term involvement by asponsoring NGO could mean that the enterprise is unsustainable and therefore must relyforever on an organization that was merely meant to be an initial facilitator.Similarly for the case of the NGO as interim facilitator, there are benefits and costs to such arole. If the NGO exits too soon, the NBE could fail for lack of sufficient guidance and resourcesat its critical takeoff stage. Exit too late and the NGO could become a drag on the performanceof the NBE or an impediment to its evolution.46

While arriving at the best definition of how long a sponsoring NGO is not an exact science, fromthe outset it is important and constructive to lay out the terms of the NGO’s participation in theNBE and its exit strategy, as appropriate. And the NBE’s business plan, which should bespelled out very early on, is the logical and best place to make this specification. As a result, allstakeholders will know from the beginning what the projected role of the NGO is meant to be inthe life of the NBE.4. Additional business analysis and technical advice (applying a value-chain perspective;developing business plans; offering business management advice) are needed. The marketorientation of several NBEs observed by the Review Team could be significantly reinforced.Better analysis and expanded business services would strengthen the efforts to create viableNBEs that generate added value.The Review Team encountered a number of good examples – in USAID-funded activities andelsewhere -- where sponsoring organizations and stakeholders are pursuing ways to createadded value through the NBEs that they are trying to establish. Butterfly pupae exports throughthe Kipepeo project have generated surpluses in Arabuko Sokoke. New outlets need to bedeveloped. Ecotourism businesses have become viable ventures. New products have beencreated, such as ICIPE’s development of Naturub and Mondia Tonic. Much of this has beenaccomplished without extensive involvement of formal business expertise. Providing additionalbusiness services to the USAID-funded program could have significant benefits. The proposed“butterfly house” for Mombasa needs to be carefully reviewed prior to funding the $400,000balance of USAID funds designated for this project and administered by NMK. Within thelandscape approach which, needs reinforcing at AS, greater efforts might be made to upgradethe existing ‘butterfly house’ near Gede into a major tourist attraction, before creating apotentially costly to run and manage butterfly house that might negatively compete with theArabuko Sokoke Landscape’s own tourist attraction. Some of these funds might also be betterused to help support small-grants or revolving loans for additional butterfly houses, mushroomhuts, and other business ventures within the AS landscape itself – scaling up activities so as toachieve impact.Additional business services could be focused on the following:First, bringing a “value chain” perspective to an existing or proposed NBE provides the meansfor understanding better the challenges and opportunities that face the NBE. Specifically, avalue chain perspective considers all of the factors that, linked together, form the basis ofcreating value in a particular market. In simplified terms, the value chain is composed of thefollowing linkages: Input Suppliers Producers Processors/Packagers Marketers/Retailers Consumers. These links can be examined both individually andcollectively to see where value can be created -- by eliminating obstacles (e.g., lack of technicalexpertise for better modes of processing), by reducing constraints (e.g., inadequate capitalfinancing) or by pursuing opportunities (e.g., links to domestic and international buyers).Furthermore, a value chain perspective helps promote market-driven orientation to the NBE. Inseveral circumstances, the Review Team observed that NBEs were being guided solely byproduction considerations (supply) rather than the demands of the market.Second, writing good business plans is an essential step in defining what steps need to betaken to make the NBE succeed and articulating that approach both to the business partnersthemselves as well as to outside parties (such as donors and sponsoring organizations) whomay provide investment funds or other resources. The Review Team observed that thedevelopment of business plans has not been a common practice in the USAID-supported47

activities in the past. However, recent activities have more frequently included the preparationof business plans. Making the preparation of business plans a standard prerequisite forreceiving USAID support would help focus the program’s NBE activities on NBE candidates thatare better prepared for success. Furthermore, if a value chain analysis has been conducted forthe sector where the NBE is being developed, a business plan can benefit.Third, in selected cases, USAID resources could be used to obtain business managementadvice for particularly promising NBE ventures. For example, in the case of high-end ecolodgesthat are owned by a community, it may be more effective (and therefore profitable) tohire the services of a professional tourism/lodging management group, at least in initial phasesin order to share expertise with the community. Such a group has access to high-end marketsand tourist circuits, knows the ‘client-first’ rule to meet market needs and quality standards andknows how to manage the operational resources.5. Leaders for the new NBEs have emerged in a number of cases. A more systematicapproach could be taken to identifying and encouraging such leaders, organizing the NBEventure to take advantage of their contributions and, as appropriate, putting more resources attheir disposal. These steps could enhance the chances for success in the NBE and can createa basis for scaling up the enterprise.In the agricultural sector, local lead farmers who adopt new methods typically serve as betterexamples for other local farmers to follow than “project managed demonstration sites.” Theanalogy works the same for encouraging the development of local nature-based enterprises.Community groups and individuals will benefit as well as out-growers and suppliers.Furthermore, identifying leaders and reinforcing an entrepreneurial mindset can create muchmore momentum for NBEs to take off and become viable businesses. The Review Teamobserved this practice on selected occasions but doing more to encourage and train suchleaders can make NBE start-up activities more effective and lay the groundwork for creatingentrepreneurs who are the champions of their business ventures. Business plans can provide ameans for singling out such leaders, defining or reinforcing the critical role that they play in thesuccess of the NBE and determining what resources should be put at their disposal.6. Kipepeo may need better business orientation in the starting and managing of its NBEs.Progress is being made (with the business plans and cash flows prepared by Ideal BusinessLinks) but starting new ventures (e.g., aloe vera) without business analysis is risky. At the sametime, Kipepeo is a good starting point for thinking about strategic perspectives on NBEs since ithas been managing a portfolio of NBEs.7. It is uncertain whether the proposed $500,000 investment in a butterfly house at PortJesus near Mombasa will generate sufficient benefits to justify this USAID investment. Also, it isunclear whether any significant benefits would flow back to the butterfly producers at ASthemselves.8. LWF’s tourism approach is a partnership between community and private sector. Forexample, women own a facility that is built by the community and paid for with donor funds.Women enter into an agreement with a private sector entity to run the lodge since the women’sgroup does not have the necessary skills. LWF might train the community to run the lodge butthat would take time. In the meantime the lodge needs to be operating therefore it would be runprivately or jointly with the community. Another option would be to leave the private sector inthe role of operating the lodge (such as through a lease arrangement), an option that LWFappears to be moving towards as a way to guarantee high quality for high prices charged for48

services. This approach is a natural progression between the community and a private sectorentity. LWF would leave it to those parties to work it out.9. The TIST program provides an economic incentive but does not lead to the creation ofan NBE. It has this potential, if integrated into the forest management plans of specific CBOswithin specific forest reserves around Mt. Kenya. The global carbon credit market is not yet welldeveloped, which makes the long-term viability of this approach uncertain still.3.2.2 KCMPSituation1. IUCN made initial investment in Wasini Women’s Group boardwalk. PACT tried to moveNBEs ahead (with the intention of having an approach like that of the JKPB Trust). SinceWasini is homogenous community, it has worked well. There is a combination of ecotourismattractions: Wasini has a boardwalk and coral gardens while Shimoni has slave caves. The thirdvillage in the area does not have a community project (Nkweru).2. KCMP: August, 2006 Power Point presentation cites the development of 3 businessplans for fishing projects in Kaya Kinondo, Kaya Diani and Mwaepe. This same presentationcites the establishment of linkages with Honey Care Africa for beekeeping technical support andmarket provision for honey produced. The presentation also points to the development of anecotourism business development plan. It is unclear what financial benefits these initiativesmay have generated.3. JK Fisheries Group includes 78 fishermen in the area. PACT-Kenya prepared abusiness plan. USAID funds built a fishing banda basic structure but fishermen completed itusing other donor funding. Mombasa Marine Reserve and Park is near their fishing grounds butoff-limits to fishers. Since the group has not entered into agreement with CDA yet, it has notbegun to implement activities proposed under its business plan.4. At JKPB, support to the various user groups has been a useful organizing endeavor.Business plans that have been developed but have not yet been implemented. A boat wasprovided at a project cost of $100,000 but it has yet to be used because of conflicting objectivesof program partners about potential revenue sharing, who actually owns the boat, and whereand how profits earned should be distributed. The fishermen’s group objected to CDA taking animportant percentage of the profit to generate funds for another boat that would be given toother fishermen outside this particular group (who had their own needs for additional boats).5. Mwaepe Fish Landing Site, Diani-Chale. USAID funds have built the boat, renovatedthe fishing banda, built toilets, renovated meeting building and bought nets, engines, scale,office furniture. The boat has been used two times but is not currently being used because theseas are too rough (as illustrated by diving boat that capsized while we were there). Fishermennow fish using canoes but there appears to be fishing in the marine reserve area, which isillegal. They sell fish to fish mongers who sell to hotels and restaurants and individuals. Thefisherman association believes there is a role for fish mongers and does not want to replacethem: all have to benefit.6. Rainwater harvesting tank homestead: This activity was started in 2003 in Mombasa (23tanks total) but no one was interested in investing after the pilot. Consequently, the effort49

moved to Kwale District (10 tanks, with requests for many more). Tanks of 6,000 and 10,000liters are provided to schools, health clinics, groups, and individuals. This project has benefited10,000 people, decreasing cholera cases and reducing resources dedicated to drinking watercollection. Children no longer have to go to river daily except to get water for washing and foranimals.Analysis/Conclusions1. Greater focus should be placed on selected landscapes with more support directedtowards community-driven nature-based enterprises with a direct link to NRM and biodiversityconservation. JKPB activities should be integrated into landscape system, bringing together theleading stakeholders with respect to this coastal and adjacent marine resource, or otherwisephased out.2. If continued support is provided, there is a need to provide a professional review of thebusiness plan and then to support activities of fishing, monitoring, and support development ofthe accounting and marketing channels needed for success. Other money could continue to bemade available to continue to support small grants to other enterprises here. It is not clearhowever that any of the activities developed at JKPB actually will have a direct impact on thethreats to the adjacent Marine Park or Reserve. JKPB user groups are being addressed as asmall group of users who are only some of the key users within the larger landscape system ofwhich it is a part.3. The review team was impressed with what has been accomplished under the localleadership of the Mida Creek Awareness and Conservation Group. There is great need at theboardwalk operated by the group of women at Wasini, particularly in terms of interpretive signsand posted messages for tourists. We recommend that a qualified individual from this group beengaged as a resource person to assist in leading an effort to help the Wasini boardwalkproject. This individual may need to also engage some of the specialized TA used at MidaCreek for some of the interpretive signs.3.2.3 Other Programs: ICIPE in Kakamega Forest RegionSituation1. ICIPE, in partnership with KWS, KEFRI and the University of Nairobi, has madeadvances with the creation of two new products (Naturub and Mondia Tonic) that have brandnamerecognition and that rely on production in the Kakamega Forest region. The first productuses natural camphor made from oscimum cultivated by producer groups in the Kakamegaregion (Murilu Conservation Farmers Group (MCFG) and outgrowers). The MCFG also distillsthe oscimum leaves to produce the natural camphor gel used in the manufacture of Naturub.Mondia Tonic relies on domesticated mondia production in the Kakamega region that serves asan alternative to the extraction of mondia root that is commonly practiced in the region. Mondiaroot is processed and dried at a facility owned and operated by a local environmentalorganization (KEEP).2. ICIPE is also sponsoring the development of beekeeping and silk production (both wildand domesticated). Infrastructure is being constructed to house local processing of bothproducts.50

3. A small amount of butterfly pupae production is being undertaken by KEEP.Analysis/Conclusions1. The Kakamega initiatives have resulted in very good product development (naturalcamphor in Naturub; mondia) and in brand equity. Improvements have been made in the supplychain with extensive involvement of local producers.2. The sustainability of the various enterprises sponsored by the ICIPE partnerships is stilluncertain. At this stage, the products show good business prospects but there is still heavyreliance on donor funding. It is not clear whether the future revenue stream will be sufficient tomaintain the capital investment that is in place or being constructed. Nonetheless there ispromise in the fact that ICIPE has initiated a revolving loan fund approach (which is currentlycharging the Murilu group 3% interest).3. Arrangements to protect long-term “investment” or “capital” interest of producers arebeing worked out late in the product development/marketing process (at least in case of ICIPE’sinvolvement in natural camphor and mondia products that have “brand equity”). Production andsales have been underway for a few years without these arrangements. It is important to workthis out immediately so that it is settled before the enterprise starts generating significantsurpluses since disagreements over this formulation could jeopardize working relationshipamong farmers and organizations involved in the enterprise.3.2.4 Recommendations1. Apply a more strategic vision and more systematic evaluation of candidate NBEs inUSAID investment decisions in order to ensure highest “return”.USAID Investment in NBEs needs to be more strategic to assure the highest “return”. EachNBE should be evaluated in terms of the its actual or project performance relative to thefollowing criteria:a. Contributes to biodiversity conservation,b. Improves livelihoods of poor communities (especially those are live nearbiodiversity resources and/or use them),c. Can be sustained by given date without outside subsidies andd. Is replicable.2. Clarify ownership (and therefore, of profit-sharing) of NBE early in the establishment ofthe business. Ideally this should be done right at the beginning to create transparency and giveclear signals to all stakeholders.3. Distribution of profits among different NBE enterprises should be treated as loans not assubsidies.4. Long-term roles of sponsoring organizations (NGOs) need to be specified in thebusiness plan for each NBE to define whether they are interim facilitators or long-term partners.51

5. Expand business services to new and existing NBEs (identification of markets; linkageswith buyers (domestic and international); enterprise management).6. Find “champions” – entrepreneurs - and assist them to scale up.7. USAID should consider involving ICIPE in the scoping out of new NBE productdevelopment possibilities in the areas where USAID FORREMS and KCMP activities are takingplace. The organization and its partners (KWS, KEFRI and the University of Nairobi) havecreated new value-added through the development of new products, the provision of qualityassurance and the creation of brand equity.3.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity ConservationSituation1. Forest Policy:The recent enactment of the Forest Policy and the Forest Act (2005) paves the way forstakeholder participation in forest management. Even before these pieces of legislation wereapproved, PFM plans was being piloted at target sites. In fact, on-the-ground PFM interventionsand their local advocates helped to propel the new forestry legislation forward. The KenyaForest Department recognizes that “often those most dependent on forest resources have theleast power of access and the most limited role in decision making”. 22 Efforts are being made tomove greater governance and shared responsibility to local communities, something in directsupport of overall U.S. government support goals.The new forest legislation is broad, and before it can be operationalized, the FD is developingsets of implementation guidelines. These guidelines will be gazetted, and will become legallyrecognized “subsidiary regulations”, 23 in essence a set of detailed procedures of engagement.The first two sets of implementation guidelines, covering community and private sectorinvolvement, have been produced in draft (as of August 2006), and the third set, governingcharcoal use and management, is in process. There will be a total of 19 legally binding rules,which FD intends to have in place by January 2007.With USAID funding, the GoK and community stakeholders have produced natural resourceinventories and management plans in the target forest reserves but additional plans are needed,detailing community roles, activities, management, and monitoring so that PFM can be formallyoperationalized. In addition, according to the Forest Policy, community groups must beregistered at the national level as Community Forest Associations (CFA)--the legal bodies thatcan enter into PFM agreements with the FD.The following is the status of PFM plans and community organizations:(1) Mukogodo Forest: USAID supported KEFRI, FD, KWS, NEMA, AWF, and LWF toproduce the Mukogodo Forest Integrated Management Plan (IMP), 2002-2016. Each groupranch must now produce an Operational Plan (OP), based on the IMP. The OP, animplementation level plan, will be the legally binding PFM instrument, signed by therepresentative of the communities (the CFA, ILMAMUSI) and the FD. Currently, each group22 “Understanding the new Forest Policy and Forests Act, 2005”, CREEL, 2006, p.1.23 Personal communication, FD Chief Conservator, August 14, 200652

anch is developing its Operational Plans. These will be finalized by December 2006. 24ILMAMUSI, an umbrella CBO, has been formed, representing the four group ranches, but mustnow register as a CFA to actively participate with FD in forest management.(2) Arabuko Sokoke Forest: ASF has a 25-year Strategic Plan (2000-2025). Before it canoperationalize its PFM, all 52 villages that buffer the forest must have resource inventories,maps, and guidelines. Currently, all of the villages from Kakuyuri to Mkongo (villages on theeastern side of the forest) and Kahingoni, Dida, and Kafitsoni, on the western side, have doneresource and social inventories, mapping, and have developed guidelines. ASF consists of sixzones; 3.5 zones have completed the mapping and resource inventory process, leaving 2.5zones currently developing their plans and guidelines. To ensure that the forest is dividedequitably among the villages, and to have the whole AS Forest under PFM, all villages mustcomplete this portion of the PFM process before moving on to a harmonized management plan.ASFADA, the umbrella group for the AS Forest would get the authority to manage the AS Forestwith the six zones as the implementers. Nature Kenya hopes to complete the work on theremaining zones by January 2007; the work will probably involve a sampling process and rapidappraisal. By February 2007, the entire AS Forest would have six forest management plans,the principal management tools, and there will be an ASFADA plan that harmonizes the sixindividual plans.(3) Mt. Kenya: KWS and FD have produced a joint management plan covering the Mt.Kenya Forest Reserve (managed by the Forest Department) and Mt. Kenya National Park(managed by the Kenya Wildlife Service)—the Integrated Natural Resources Management Planfor Mt. Kenya. Currently, the plan is at an “advanced draft” stage, and is expected to befinalized by December 2006. 25 Once the mangement plan is finalized, CFAs can move to thenext stage, developing CAPs. Of the two districts targeted for PFM, Nyeri District has 12 forestdistricts (seven in Mt. Kenya and five in the Aberdares), and Meru District has seven foreststations; one CFA will be registered for each forest station and one CFA will be produced foreach forest station. In Meru District, one CFA has been registered, and a second is soon to beregistered. Because of the gap in USAID funding, in Nyeri District, groups have been mobilized,but registration as CFAs has stalled.2. Coastal PolicyDevelopment of a coastal policy has been a slow process, in part bogged down by competingand powerful interests. The GoK signed Agenda 21 of the Rio Conference committing thecountry to protect the coastal and marine environment in its development agenda; and in 1993,the GoK signed the Arusha Resolution on Integrated Coastal Area Management in EasternAfrica, prompting countries to institutionalize ICM as a tool for the sustainable use of coastalresources (CDA Power Point presentation, August 2006). CDA points to the lack of a holisticapproach to management of coastal and marine resources—a constraint that could, in part beaddressed by a Coastal and Marine Policy.The KCMP has supported the development of a coastal policy and legislative framework. InNovember 2005, an ICM policy workshop established an ICM Policy Steering Committee to helpmove a national coastal management policy forward. Although NGOs, USAID, other donors,and other coastal and marine stakeholders have lobbied for an integrated coastal-marine policy,24 Personal communication, ILMAMUSI staff, August 2006.25 Personal communication, DFO-Gathuri Forest Station, August 200653

there has been little to show for these efforts. Similar to the history of the Forest Policy,activities on the ground are moving at a faster pace and the policy-enabling environment islagging behind.GoK jurisdiction over the coastal and marine environment is complex: KWS has the mandate tomanage Kenya’s Marine Parks and Reserves; Fisheries Department oversees exploitation andmanagement of the country’s fisheries within the marine parks and reserves; and FD and KWSshare management of mangrove areas. FD promotes sustainable use but KWS allows onlypreservation, a conflict in management approach between GoK entities that results in confusionon the ground.The Kenya Marine Forum (KMF) aims to play a central role in formulating and carrying out aNational Coastal and Marine Policy. The KMF envisions a coastal-marine policy that wouldencourage community participation in the sustainable management of resources. KMF is ayoung and relatively weak organization that has been unable to provide the momentum neededto get a marine and coastal policy in place.3. Environmental Management and Coordination ActWith USAID funding, NEMA is developing guidance and training manuals based on the EMCA,which cover professional criteria for district environmental committees; environmental significantareas; environmental easements and orders; environmental economics; and EIA andenvironmental audit. As of August 2006, the first manual had been produced and the remainingfour are in draft. With the arrival of USAID funds in August 2006, NEMA can now finalize themanuals, and expects these to be completed in 1.5 months. 26 NEMA will then use thesemanuals to train District Environmental Officers (DEO) and District Environmental Committees.USAID has facilitated NEMA involvement in FORREMS (provision of vehicles and infrastructureand other logistical support). Support to the DEO has helped to ensure that FORREMS andKCMP interventions incorporate environmental review, based on the EMCA (project screening,impact assessment, where necessary, and monitoring), and provide a model for all developmentactivities. EMCA and its associated legislation covers development actions in coastal, marine,forest, national park, as well as in urban locations, and therefore is cross-cutting and a keycomponent of FORREMS and KCMP activities.4. Wildlife PolicyUSAID/Kenya’s Activity Approval Document for the Wildlife Management and ConservationProgram (USAID/Kenya, March 2005) states that one of the key challenges for this program ispolicy failure in the wildlife sector. Kenya’s laws and policies tend to favor “conservation” (wiseuse), yet implementation is extremely preservationist (no use). There are few incentives forcommunities/landowners to conserve wildlife, as those who bear the costs are not entitled tobenefits. The wildlife policy remains in limbo. PFM and the Forest Department’s support ofcommunity involvement in forest management could provide a model for KWS in an updatedand revised wildlife policy. Other models would include the CAMPFIRE program undertaken inZimbabwe and similar programs elsewhere (cf. Annex 8). There appears to be a strong desirewithin KWS to return to controlled harvesting techniques (e.g. hunting) but this should be basedon sharing of benefits as accomplished through CAMPFIRE. 2726 Personal communication, NEMA staff, August 14, 200627 Within Kenya, some state that ‘conditions in Zimbabwe were different’, which may have permitted success there,but this would be difficult to implement in Kenya’. The Mid-Term Review Team Leader assisted in the final review of54

The current situation, whereby the FD is now moving quickly towards PFM, but KWS retains the“command and control” methods, presents a confused picture to stakeholders, especially inareas that are managed in partnership by KWS and FD or KWS and the Fisheries Department,for example, mangrove ecosystems, marine parks and reserves, and Mt. Kenya NationalReserve.Analysis and Conclusions1. Forestry PolicyCommunity Capacity: While the MTR Team visited communities that were ready tooperationalize PFM (Arabuko Sokoke, Mukogodo, and Mt. Kenya), some communities still haverelatively low capacities.Slow Pace of Forestry Reforms: The real limiting factor for forestry policy has been the slowpace of getting the legislative framework in place, frustrating some communities that are primedto implement PFM. According to FD staff, the slow pace of forestry reforms, as well as the gapin USAID funding to FD to support PFM, has frustrated target pilot communities who havereached a point where they are ready to fully participate in and benefit by PFM. While January2007 is the target for Forest Policy implementation, given the history of policy implementation,the date may slip without the legal framework in place.Management Plans: While there are overall management plans in place for the target forests(see above), CFAs must produce CAPs (or Operational Plans for Mukogodo Forest), actionableplans that will provide the legal basis to operationalize PFM. (Guidance on developing CAPs ispart of FD’s implementing guidelines on PFM, which the MTR Team was not given access todue to their draft nature. FD staff stated that one chapter of the PFM guidelines has beenallocated to describe CAP preparation and information needed). FD will sign an agreement withthe appropriate CFA to implement the CAP. However, at Mukogodo, Arabuko Sokoke, and Mt.Kenya, CAPs (or Operational Plans) have yet to be produced. While most FORREMS partnersstated that there are so many plans, and it is now time to implement, there are still more plansneeded before PFM can actually be operationalized. The GoK, NGOs, and CBOs are targetingDecember 2006/January 2007 for finalizing many of the pieces needed to operationalize PFMs.Where possible and appropriate, USAID continued funding in support of this process is critical.2. Coastal PolicyKCMP partners have been operating without a coastal-marine policy. While significant efforthas gone into developing a policy (including support from USAID), this effort remains stalled.Although KMF envisions one of their priority roles as advocating for a coastal-marine policy, theforum is weak and its advocacy role lacks a strategic focus. KMF must respond to manycompeting interests in a (perhaps too) wide geographic area. KMF may be one of the likelyorganizations to catalyze support for a coastal-marine policy, whereby stakeholder interests andconcerns can be voiced and incorporated, as appropriate. KMF would have to be a neutralbody, providing a facilitation role.3. Environmental Management & Coordination Agency (EMCA)CAMPFIRE, and maintains that the principles of CAMPFIRE could certainly be applied within Kenya, particularlywithin private game ranches and other similar controlled areas.55

FORREMS and KCMP built capacity and have provided logistical support to facilitate NEMAand District Environmental Officer (DEO) participation in these programs. In the FORREMS andKCMP target districts, DEOs are full partners, providing guidance and support in environmentalimpact assessment. While NEMA requires funding to continue its training program, capacity ofthe DEOs is adequate to continue to play their mandated role in FORREMS and KCMP.4. Wildlife PolicyA polarized stakeholder community is the main cause of the breakdown in policy development inthe wildlife sector. Success stories in PFM can help drive a revised wildlife policy thatincorporates community management, use, and benefits.Recommendations1. Forestry Policy: Some communities still have relatively low capacities. Organizational,financial, technical, and enterprise development capacities should be strengthened at PFMtarget sites so that communities can be equal partners – and true beneficiaries - in PFM plans.2. EMCA: As a crosscutting and key partner in FORREMS and KCMP, NEMA input isimportant, and as necessary, minimal facilitation, to ensure continued participation could beprovided.4. Wildlife Policy: Since USAID supports activities in the wildlife and forestry sectors, and isa lead donor in these areas, the Agency can encourage the sharing of success stories, andthereby build support for a revised Wildlife Policy. In addition, because FORREMS and KCMPhave strong coordination and management teams that include KWS and FD staff, this crosssectoralcollaboration between KWS and FD can provide additional impetus to move a wildlifepolicy forward. To help catalyze a Wildlife Policy that incorporates participatory managementand community use and benefits, and to build a constituency for coastal and marineconservation, USAID-supported interventions should target demonstrations ofparticipatory/community-based management.5. Priority should be given to completing Community Action/Operational Plans and signingPFM agreements between CFAs and the FD so that Action/Operational Plans are ready to beimplemented once FD finalizes Forest Act implementation guidelines.6. Development of a fee-based membership forum should be supported as an outgrowth ofeach landscape approach in the coastal/marine environment (ASF expanded landscape). Onceempowered, depending on resources and capacity, the forums to promote the development of acoastal-marine policy should be facilitated.3.4 Cross-cutting IssuesSituation1. Review Team assessments of program documents and field observations clearly foundthat both women and youth have had a very significant role in all phases in the development offorest management plans and in the nature-based enterprises that have begun. Youth havebecome engaged as ‘forest scouts’ in several locations, moving as a group as they patrol and56

protect the reserve forest resources that they have begun to manage. 28 We met groups ofwomen involved with tree nursery establishment and sales, bee keeping, capturing butterfliesand raising larvae/pupae, and responsible for ‘board walks’ over mangrove areas near theirhome sites, drawing, in the case of the Wasini ‘coral gardens boardwalk’ over 10,000 visitorsthis past year.2. Women in one group ranch in Mukogodo Landscape provided all the voluntary labor indigging trenches and planting tree seedlings and aloe plants upon a large area they fenced in.Indeed, the Review Team considers this particular case a real success story in community jointaction, without much outside support, in seeking to improve much-degraded rangeland uponwhich they know their livelihoods depend. We also met a group of women involved in makingelephant dung paper and another collecting medicinal plants/herbs for processing and sales.TIST small-groups benefiting from carbon-credits linked to their planting of trees are heavilyweighted towards women.3. Local governance options within community based participatory forest managementplans for both designated areas within Forest Reserves near which they live, or outside uponcommunal land have been an extremely important crosscutting development under bothFORREMS and KCMP. Including the involvement of local fishermen associations or local boatowners, like the Kisite Private Boat Operations Association on the mainland across from WasiniIsland have all expressed a desire to be part of both the sustainable use and protection/care ofMarine Reserves where they either fish or take tourists for snorkeling and scuba diving.4. The Landscape systems approach to biodiversity conservation is itself the idealcrosscutting strategy to use within all USAID-supported geographical areas. Through the feepaying,membership forum approach within stakeholder defined geographic areas, throughbringing all these stakeholders – public and private sector – together at the same level todevelop a common vision of what needs to be done – and then doing it – there is true hope forbiodiversity conservation and future sustainability. Without such an approach however, therecan be little hope for the long-term survival of the natural resource base and biodiversity uponwhich different competing land user and landowner groups are depending.5. Within the U.S. government’s new Foreign Assistance directives for ‘transformationaldiplomacy’, USAID/Kenya’s mission activities with an ‘environmental’ focus would fall within thestrategic objective of “Investing in People”. USAID/Kenya’s biodiversity focus for NRM, whichincludes efforts towards CBNRM programs that partner local individuals and their communitieswith government services in a collaborative approach to biodiversity conservation, would beseen as ‘investing in people’. Yet, it is also clear that USAID/Kenya’s biodiversity program alsocontributes directly to several of the other strategic objectives in a crosscutting way. Capacitybuilding support being given to GoK institutions within the biodiversity support program, whichfocuses on the real ‘on-the-ground’ implementation of local management initiatives to includelocal communities in biodiversity conservation, is important. The creation of nature-basedprivate sector enterprises, led by both private entrepreneurs and community basedorganizations (CBOs), with out-grower networks among people living adjacent to both protectedareas and reserves, is also key to reducing poverty (a leading cause of pressures upon limitednatural resources) and stimulating economic growth.28 The Review Team encountered the following telling situation: Forest Department guards had captured a man whohad illegally harvested trees from the Dida Community’s section of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve. The forestguards had been called in by these youth scouts, and pointed out where illegal activity was taking place. This personwas from outside their community and was trying ‘to steal’ their resources.57

Challenges/Conclusions1. FORREMS and KCMP field activities have been aggressive in looking for opportunitiesto include women and youth in the programs being developed, particularly through nature-basedenterprises in which they have a principal stake, through nursery development and tree planting,including TIST small groups, and through participation in PFM plans for the forest resourcesadjacent to their communities.2. PFM plans have created an opportunity for local communities, and specific interestsgroups within these communities to become more directly involved in the natural resources andbiodiversity represented in different land types adjacent to where they live (degraded pastures,dry forests, degraded forests, plantation forests, grasslands). This devolution of authority andmanagement responsibilities to local communities, within management plans cooperativelydeveloped with FD, KSW, and marine services is very encouraging. However, the time toimplement these management plans has come. Otherwise the efforts the past few years will bewasted since communities will become impatient with the ‘promises’ of greater say andinvolvement in the resources around them.3. The landscape systems approach being implemented by the LWF in Laikipia andelsewhere is perhaps the best existing model within Kenya of how potentially competing landowner and land user groups can be brought together within a forum with a common vision forthe sustainable development, care and use of their shared landscape.Recommendations1. Continue to support and build upon the community groups already being developedwithin the landscape systems, with increasing efforts to scale-up the activities of these women,youth, and others and to also link them to the marketplace buyers of their products.2. Reinforce the move to operationalize PFM plans by supporting FD, KWS, and other GoKinstitutions and their personnel directly involved in moving legislation to reality on the ground.Support the ability of GoK personnel to interact within existing and new landscape forums asthey are created – not to dominate or control them but to provide their facilitation services whereforum members will recognize a need.3. Concentrate future field-based USAID funding of activities through different regionallybased, different local stakeholder based forums. Rather than ‘parachute’ new activities into anarea without properly channeling it through local stakeholder groups, the forum approach givesgreater legitimacy to new activities, helps to prevent duplication and bringing in potential conflict.3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and ReportingSituation1. The USAID/Kenya Strategic Framework #5 (Figure 1) led to the development of thirteenperformance indicators. Partners receiving USAID FORREMS and KCMP funding were58

equired to report upon these indicators as implementation took place. 29 Ultimately, only thefirst two were to be reported upon with any regularity. The 13 indicators and their relationship tothe Mission’s Strategic Plan are:1. SO # 5 Land use change in target area (CORE, FORREMS, KCMI)2. # of stakeholders benefiting from involvement in improved NRM (direct male, female;indirect)3. IR 5.1 # of NRM initiatives successfully implemented in target areas (CORE, FORREMS, KCMI)4. IR 5.1.1 # of conservation tools/technologies in use by targeted stakeholders5. IR 5.1.2 # of integrated NRM plans implemented6. IR 5.1.3 Functionality of Databases available to targeted decision makers7. IR 5.1.4 Financial benefits to communities from nature-based businesses8. IR 5.1.5 Organization development index9. IR 5.3.1 % of target protected areas utilizing new M&E tracking systems10. Functionality of internal databases for monitoring and evaluation11. IR 5.4 Level of policy/legislation advancement12. IR 5.4.1 Operational level of legislative and policy functions within selected institutions13. IR 5.4.2 Level of capacity of selected CBOs in policy formulation and advocacy2. An indicator-by-indicator discussion can be found in Annex 2.1. Difficulties with variousindicators are discussed and some suggestions for modifications or changes made. 303. As seen by the review of the 13 different SO 5 indicators, serious difficulties wereencountered by program implementers (GoK institutions and field implementation NGOs) withthe M&E system put into place and with the performance indicators that should be periodicallymeasured (usually annually). Comments included the system “was extremely difficult tocomplete and report upon”. Coming up with the list of 13 indicators was accomplished througha collaborative process of stakeholder organizations - essentially the USAID SO 5 team meetingwith GoK institutional partners. It was not ‘field-tested’ prior to establishment and baseline data(point of departure) still do not exist for some of the indicators.4. The M&E system was then taken ‘to the field’ to implement. USAID grant managershave commented upon the difficulty of gaining an understanding of the progress made at theimplementation sites and with communities, and more importantly, of impact from theinformation received. Six of the thirteen indicators are actually complicated indexes averagedfrom a list of items that would need to be scored. Indicator 13 for example – the ‘AdvocacyIndex”, is made up of 40 items pertaining to skills levels related to an organization’s capacity inadvocacy that would need to be scored! Only two of the thirteen indicators might be consideredto help management to actually measure the impact being made by the program on intendedobjectives, and even these do so only indirectly.5. Missing in the existing M&E system is a requirement to identify and write-up “successstories” which help to illustrate impact at the local level. Well-written success stories are one ofthe best ways to illustrate achievements in a process of activities leading to an ultimateobjective. Efforts to link the needs of community members in the Makurian Group Ranch atMukogodo are benefiting both wildlife, livestock, and community members. A private rancherfenced off and protected water sources on his own land and then began providing this water bygravity to cisterns within the arid group ranch area. This example is a real success story sinceit is a case of bringing different user groups together - once in open conflict – to create acompromise that will have a direct impact on biodiversity conservation within this area of theForest Reserve.29 USAID Kenya, Performance Monitoring Plan for SO 5, February 2004, p.4.30 USAID Kenya Performance Monitoring Plan for SO 5, February 2004.59

6. Performance monitoring under FORREMS was led through the efforts of the M&E unitwithin KWS, a unit with excellent GIS spatial analysis capabilities. The Coast DevelopmentAuthority (CDA) was the GoK institution responsible for coordinating efforts under the KenyaCoastal Management Program (KCMP), and some of the fieldwork for this was sub-contractedthrough PACT/Kenya. Information flow on SO 5 indicators has been difficult to manage for bothinstitutions. KWS did manage to get out a ‘Performance Monitoring Report’ for both 2004 and2005 that attempted to be responsive to the SO 5 indicators. CDA, on the other hand, aftercreating a ‘Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Plan (July 2004)’ on these indicators, seems tohave been unable to report at all on these indicators, and failed to do so. The Review Teamfound no regular CDA reporting on indicators for 2005 or 2006. CDA reporting on their ‘results’was given in a more conventional way, simply reporting on what were considered to be majoractivities and accomplishments. 317. It is worth noting that TIST is currently employing a field-based monitoring systemmeasuring the number of hectares being targeted and the number of stakeholders who arebenefiting. This system is innovative and could be useful in other applications. However,whether the costs of this approach are affordable would need to be investigated before arecommendation can be made on applying this system elsewhere.Analysis/Conclusions1. Generally, it is very difficult to assess impact on either NRM by target communities or ofbiodiversity conservation from any of the 13 SO 5 indicators – which were more ‘process’orientated in nature. While some accomplishments can be cited (such as the planting of800,000 trees under the TIST program with Ksh 800,000 going to farmers), overall, there islimited measurable impact to date. In most cases, during the past two years, there have beennumerous studies, inventories; creation of business plans, organizing groups – but extremelylittle direct implementation. Yet USAID is results-focused and waiting to know about impact ofits interventions on target communities to realize the stated biodiversity conservation goals.2. Separate reporting on the different M&E indices every year is neither realistic, nor evenhelpful. Future assessments would better be considered as a ‘special assessment study’ doneat set intervals. Such an assessment could be done at the beginning of 2007, for instance, asnew program funding continues, and then every two years through September 2011, using thebaseline already established.3. Under a new management structure for a future combined FORREMS/KCMP program,the current set of indicators should be revised and new ones added which are more closelylinked to the biodiversity conservation goals of this program, and better measure the impact onthe concerned communities. Too much effort was expended in trying to measure ‘administrativeprocess’ in the SO 5 indicators and not enough on conservation and biodiversity impact.4. In the new M&E system that is currently in the process of being identified betweenUSAID and State for future global monitoring indicators, it will be important to identify “astandard set of measures and results indicators from which country teams can set specifictargets to be achieved”. The Review Team will propose a number of indicators that might feed31 CDA, KCMP Fy2005-2006 Progress Report, February 2005, and as presented in the CDA PowerPoint presentationto the Review Team during their visit to Mombasa, August 6, 2006 – presented by Mainaina Mburu, CDA CoastalEngineer.60

into such a system and suggests modifications be made to the current system of SO 5 M&Esystem indicators.Recommendations1. Success stories need to be documented and reported as a key type of impact indicator.LWF’s success in bringing all the major stakeholders together around the Mukogodo Landscape(four community group ranches, private ranchers adjacent to these group ranches, the tourismindustry, GoK institutions FD, KEFRI, NEMA, and KWS, and civil leaders) must be seen as amajor success story in a process towards developing a common vision and management planfor the management of natural resources and threatened biodiversity within both the dry-landforest reserve and areas around this reserve. Nature Kenya’s involvement with KWS, FD,KEFRI and NMK’s Kipepeo in particular, working with the Dida-Kahingoni-and Kafitsonicommunities bordering the south-eastern side of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest in developing aParticipatory Forest Management (PFM) plan is also a success story. This experience is anexample of public-private sector collaboration towards eventually giving these communities legalright to manage a defined area of the forest, and their own peripheral zone, in a sustainablemanner, while also protecting and conserving the existing biodiversity for future generations.The next ‘success story’ for this area will be when the Forest Department actually takes the stepto sign the authorizations with these communities to have the authority to actually implementtheir plan, the next step in the transition to CBNR management to share in the protection of theirforests. The Review Team observed a number of other similar ‘success stories’.2. An M&E system should be designed to draw key information from the bottom up, and notfrom the top down, as was the case with the existing program. KWS and LWF both haveexperienced and capable people who could lead to such a revision. Individuals exist within thecurrent group of partners within FORREMS in particular who are fully capable of revising thecurrent M&E system into something much more practical and useful for measuring progress andimpact.3. There is a need to focus on a few promising ‘management systems’ in a few landscapesystems, and then to scale-up activities in such a way that impact might actually be achieved.4. The 13 indicators currently being used by the FORREMS and KCMP programs underSO 5 need to be completely revised, or administered differently. For example, if still desired byUSAID as a management tool, all of the six ‘indices’ indicators (#s 6,8,10,11,12,13) should beadministered at one or two-year intervals in a consistent manner, such as by one designatedperson who knows how to interpret the different components of each index and can apply themacross program areas in a consistent manner.5. The real picture of biodiversity conservation and the program’s impacts may not becaptured because indicators are inadequate to measure biodiversity conservation success.Introduce new indicator(s) to monitor and report on biodiversity conservation (for example, thenumber of illegal activities/# of encroachments taking place in protected areas or forestreserves).6. Identify at least one impact indicator specific to each landscape system that addressesthe most serious threat on existing natural resources and/or biodiversity. For instance landdegradation because of overgrazing (too many animals) on group ranches is being addressed61

around Mukogodo Forest in several ways. LWF wishes to raise the quality of the small herdsowned by community members (linking them to slaughter houses), and hopefully lower thenumbers to more sustainable levels. Impacts might be seen in both increased value of ownedstock, reduced numbers overall, and improved pastures. All these can be measured bycommunity members committed to improving the lives of the members of group ranches.Regular monitoring, by the Fisheries Department with fishermen of the average size of a keyspecies of fish taken from Marine Reserves during specific times would provide a generalindicator of the success or failure in managing fishing practices and impact on this resource.Measuring actual forest quality within randomly selected blocks within one, two, and three km.of the Arabuko Sokoke Forest boundaries – once a management system has been put intoplace with community members -will monitor the maintenance, improvement, or degradation ofthe forest and ultimately the success or failure of PFM policies put into place.3.6 Program Management and ImplementationSituation1. USAID support to GoK InstitutionsIn December 2002, Kenyans elected a new government with a coalition of partners other thanthe ruling KANU party that had held power since independence in 1964. The newadministration promised to make a break with the past and has initiated a number of importantnew policies and legislation. Among expected changes, the role of government is to lessen,greater decentralization will take place, and rural communities are promised a role in jointmanagement of resources upon which they depend. FORREMS and KCPM came intoexistence during this time. Donors, including USAID, wanted to provide special encouragementto the newly created government and the institutions this new administration intended to reform.USAID, in a departure from common practices, was willing to provide some focused support toGoK institutions to build the needed capacity to undertake promised reforms. Beginning in 2003therefore, direct support grants (PILS) were provided to GoK institutions (KWS, FD, KEFRI,CDA, NMK and NEMA) to build institutional capacity (vehicles, building upgrading, computers)and train staff, seeking to bring greater accountability and strategic focus and coordination toprograms. GoK efforts to decentralize and become more responsive to the social andcommunity issues that increasingly threaten the country’s biodiversity resources and economicfuture were supported.Institutional inertia is hard to overcome, however. Policy changes have been slow and remainto be implemented for NRM. 32 Even when the GoK was provided the means to operationalizeactivities, in partnership with other groups, particularly NGOs and communities, the veryslowness in implementation and completing of tasks by GoK institutions (research, inventories,assessments, reports, financial accounting) has compromised progress. Yet progress has beenmade at the field level to help build capacity of local communities within the PFM planframework but the step to operationalize this still waits FD action. Within the marineenvironment, the recent canceling of the licenses of international trawlers taking fish fromcoastal areas of Kenya should be seen as a major step in beginning to look at the local interestsof Kenya’s own fishermen groups and their aspirations and needs upon these resources. This32 The EMCA, though passed, has yet to be implemented on the ground through contractual agreements withcommunity organizations. FD is still in the process of defining the rules of engagement (without the directinvolvement of the private sector or local community representatives in the process.)62

approach could become an important future tool in developing ‘marine resource managementplans’ that could involve some of the fishermen associations that KCMP program has beenhelping to organize. Their ‘empowerment’ could have a direct impact on pressures currentlybeing placed upon marine parks and reserves.2. GoK fundingNeither the ‘Advance System’ nor ‘Reimbursement System’ of accounting attempted by USAIDin directing funds through GoK institutions towards program activities has worked very well. Inthe case of the FD, the system of funding failed completely. Lack of promised GoK fundingessentially blocked programs in FD. Not able to appropriately manage the ‘Advance System’with USAID’s contracting office, the ‘Reimbursement System’ was given by USAID as anotheroption for USAID funds. However, because the GoK was unable to get access to advancefunds, no planned activities could be undertaken, therefore no receipts and no reimbursement.None of FD’s 3 rd PIL for $100,000 could be spent. No FORREMS activities intended throughFD have taken place for over one year. Planned activities with the U.S. Forest Service, fieldactivities with TIST and other FORREMS and KCMP field activities have not been able to takeplace. Only 40% of LOP funding to FD has been obligated and one quarter of this amountremains unspent.3. NGO InvolvementInitially in 2002, NGOs did not seem strong enough to be given responsibility for managingmajor program efforts, and so USAID took upon itself the task of program management andcoordination. The result was that a tremendous burden was placed upon the USAID Kenya SO5 team, particularly the three grant Contract Technical Officers (CTOs) 33 not only to try toprovide significant ‘hand-holding’ in preparing financial and technical reports, training in financialreporting, and trying to coordinate overall efforts but also to continue to manage the financialinstruments (PILS for GoK, cooperative agreements for NGOs) to 6 GoK institutions and 3NGO/private sector partners within both FORREMS and KCMP. The situation with NGOs isnow different. PACT USA has recently been awarded a major grant to coordinate an umbrellaof sub-contractors within the wildlife sector. Nature Kenya and Laikipia Wildlife Forum haveboth gained experience in managing USAID funds for two or more years and have the capacityto broaden their financial and management leadership in future efforts. USAID CTO, grantmanagers, and contract office capacity-building support personnel were very effective in thistraining and established good working relationships with program partners. Recent USAIDfinancial reviews/audits of both institutions have found satisfactory, even very good, accountmanagement and both have proven capable of working well with the controller’s office forfinancial management. Field activities have progressed well, though sometimes without asmuch GoK input as planned. PACT Kenya has been a sub-contractor to CDA within KCMP.4. Private Sector InvolvementPrivate sector involvement has been limited in the FORREMS and KCMP programs. Theycould have been more involved in a number of different activities, such as: creating business33 USAID SO 5 CTOs: Charles Oluchina (KWS, FD, CDA), Wairimu Mungai (KEFRI, TIST, NEMA), and BeatriceWamalwa (NMK, NK, LWF).63

plans for potential nature-based enterprises, assessing existence (volume, quality demand) ofregional and international markets, providing benefit-cost studies (such as to assess the impacton community level producers, if any, whose increased access to financial alternatives weresupposed to be linked to reduced pressure on the identified threats to selected naturalresources and biodiversity areas targeted by FORREMS and KCMP). Groups like ICIPE(international research institute) and NMK (GoK) have stepped in to try to build such links butare not making significant linkages between producers and markets directly. 34 Part of the reasonfor this problem appears to be the ‘mission creep’ discussed below, where both GoK and NGOpartners have begun to think they can do this – placing themselves within the value chainbetween the producer and the marketplace.There have been some direct and indirect examples of private sector involvement. LaikipiaWildlife Forum, which has brought in very strong involvement with the private sector (privateranches, tourism operators, hotels), considering this sector an essential stakeholder, withcommunity leaders and groups, GoK institutions, and others who have a stake within a specificgeographic landscape system. PACT Kenya has brought in some involvement of BusinessLinks, Inc. in exploring potential NBEs, but the targeted activities seem to be for disjointedactivities, good in themselves, but not part of an overall strategic plan for a landscape system asa whole. The actual private sector market buyers, with whom one would negotiate volume,understand quality needs, and place orders are, with the possible exception of the tourismindustry, missing. Honey production is very often listed as a very important commercial productfor people living near adjacent forest areas. Yet efforts to develop such resources at a scalethat could actually have an impact on incomes and ultimately behavior vis-à-vis the forest ismissing. Links with Kenyan private sector honey buyers (Honey Care, Kenyan Beekeepers,Ltd.) do not exist. Finally, TIST is linked to a private sector partner Clean Air Action CoalitionCorporation in the development of the greenhouse gas market.5. ReportingThe USAID SO 5 team CTOs also needed to constantly seek to obtain from GoK partners inparticular the periodic reports and the data needed to report on agreed upon monitoringindicators. Yet the data received proved to be difficult to use, the M&E indicators reporting ontarget field results were often not available, or when available, one would have to ask “so what”.Program impact was very difficult to discern. Success stories were not reported upon – thoughmany exist.6. Mission CreepExpanding missions (and lack of focus) appears to be endemic among most of the partners ofboth the FORREMS and KMCP programs. Whether it is KEFRI, FD, KWS, CDC, NMK, theseGoK institutions have received USAID capacity building support for the purpose ofstrengthening and promoting their stated efforts with Kenyan community-based organizations(CBO), and the local and international NGOs and other institutions (such as ICIPE) providingadditional help to these same CBOs. Having helped facilitate the creation of managementplans, these organizations desire to become engaged in implementing and operationalizingthese plans, without a clear devolution of authority. In the case of some NBEs, one would have34 Reasons given are many. The communities ‘are not capable’ of undertaking such tasks on their own; they ‘don’thave the contacts’. They don’t ‘understand the market’. Yet in many cases the helping organizations don’t either, andthemselves search out to find those who do. When markets are found, these institutions remain as intermediaries forthe communities.64

expected the creation of direct links between producer and markets but some institutions haveplaced themselves within the value chain and themselves seek the markets. Unfortunatelyhowever, this blurring of roles could lead to limiting the potential of vibrant, private sector, naturebased enterprises.7. Potential Conflict of InterestThere appears to be a potential conflict of interest in programs that seek to promote the moveby GoK parastatals to become more self-sufficient and the move to develop community basednatural resource management groups (CBNRM or CBOs) to co-manage, protect and conservebiodiversity within Kenya. In the case particularly of the forest reserves (and marine reserves)both GoK institutions and communities around these areas have their eyes on the same set ofresources. Forest reserves of the FD, for example, include a wide spectrum of ‘forest’ types(including degraded forests, plantation forests, pasture lands). FD, as it moves towards aparastatal status, has an estimated $300 million of value in its plantation forests alone, whichmay be concessioned out to private sector groups, and perhaps even CFO and CBO groups fora fee for participatory forest management programs. Yet FD also may develop plans for theother ‘forest’ categories upon which existing and future CBO’s are hoping to gain greatermanagement control and to extract some real economic benefits. Without sufficient benefitsaccruing to local community CBOs, it is unlikely that they will provide the degree ofmanagement control and protection that will be required for these dwindling resources to beconserved.8. Community-Based ManagementOne of the truly positive benefits that FORREMS and KCMP programs have brought to thevarious communities in which they have worked has been in the development of multi-usergroups (land-owners and land users) and stakeholders. The leading example of this can befound through the approach adopted by the Laikipia Wildlife Forum to “bring together privateranchers, pastoralists, small scale farmers, local community initiatives and tourism ventures” ina common goal “to conserve the integrity of the Laikipia ecosystem by creatively managingnatural resources to improve the livelihood of its people”. By creating a membership-drivenorganization with a common goal and identifiable zone of intervention, the Forum has been ableto work closely with FD, KEFRI, NEMA, KWS and others to reach common objectives andreduce both user group conflicts and human-wildlife conflict, efforts which were reinforcedthrough the USAID CORE enterprises. Under FORREMS, LWF, using this approach, hasclearly defined the Mukogodo Landscape and brought together the key constituencies that needto work out the issues of common concern in both the conservation and rehabilitation of thearea to reduce pressures upon the Forest Reserve. The foundation of the system was basedaround the ILMAMUSI CBO, formed by members from the four community group ranchessurrounding Mukogodo Forest reserve, and their evolving efforts to develop a ParticipatoryForrest Management (PFM) plan to better manage both the Forest and their adjacent ‘nonreserve’lands. Because their success in this effort would also have an impact on and benefitother user groups in the larger landscape (private ranchers, tourism, GoK efforts), these groupswere brought together by LWF to develop a common and coordinated vision on how to moveforward.9. Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP)The USAID funded initiatives along the southern Kenya coast under KCMP faced manymanagement issues which the Review Team believe limited the effectiveness of the activities65

undertaken. The Coast Development Authority (CDA), through which funding was channeled tothe Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) program, has significant regional ambitionsand effective coordination and implementation ended up being difficult. In a PowerPointpresentation to the Review Team, ICAM pointed out the following major managementchallenges they had faced, that compromised effective implementation: 35(1) Inadequate funding for identified program activities.(2) Delay in disbursement of committed activity funds resulting in time constraints and someactivities left pending.(3) Change in KCMP partner’s work plans and time over-runs caused by delayed funding.(4) Meeting the high expectations and interests from partners and the coastal community inthe implementation of the program.(5) The frequent changes in the political and management offices of the partners. Thisadversely affected the progress towards development of ICAM policy.(6) The long legal process of repossessing land from the illegal occupants and obtaininglegal land documentation.(7) Implementing officers working under pressure to perform KCMP program activities inaddition to their normal duties.(8) Performance contract system where GoK institutions are required to generate fundsaffecting commitment to program implementing officers as priority is given to other AIAactivities.(9) Lack of clear incentives affecting team morale with officers giving priority to programsthat provide incentives.10. Landscape System Forum CompositionThe Review Team observed that the Laikipia Wildlife Forum is an excellent working model of alandscape systems approach, with a fee-paying membership forum of key stakeholders leadingthe way. Such a forum must be composed of:• Local Community Leaders• Civil society local leaders• GoK: FD, KWS, KEFRI, NEMA, and Fisheries• Private Sector Operators (Hotels, Tourism Businesses)• NGOs working within the area.All of these stakeholders must have a direct relationship with a geographically definablelandscape system, sharing common threats and a powerful economic reason why they wouldwish this landscape to remain unspoiled or improved in ways that would sustain their livelihoodand economic interests. The physical boundaries must be defined by the forum members – andnot be based on geo-political boundaries. Powerful wildlife-human conflicts and conflictbetween different user groups (private ranches vs. populous group ranches) have provided thesocio-economic incentives needed to work together to solve problems in a manner whichreduces conflict and protects and improves the landscape to better meet the need of those whodepend on it for their livelihoods. Defined landscape systems along the Eastern Coast havedifferent land use issues but the basic principals for co-management are the same. Alandscape must not be too large, or there will be too many divergent interests. The entireKenya Eastern Coastal area, including the city of Mombasa, is far too large for one landscapeforum. There would need to be 3 – 4 or more ‘forums’ that clearly define interrelated interests ofa group of stakeholders on specific (threatened) resource areas.35 From PowerPoint presentation given by CDA during the visit of the Review Team in August 15, 2006.66

Within the Arabuko Sokoke landscape system, one would need to include the forest, with MidaCreek (and its mangroves) out to the Marine Park and Marine Reserve. The group of keystakeholders for this system would have to include:• Local Community Leaders (such as Dida Community)• FD, KWS, KEFRI, NEMA, NMK (Kipepeo), Fisheries• Nature Kenya,• Hemingway’s, other hotels and the rest of the tourism Industry• MIDA Creek Communities• Fishermen operating out of this immediate area (targeting Marine Reserve)A forum must be composed of membership-paying members. The forum becomes the ‘table’around which all meet at the same level, to coordinate, evaluate, and lobby for the interests ofits members. Some members have an ability to pay much more than others (e.g., hotels andprivate sector operators) but they will be part of this forum only if there is a perception that theirown long-term economic interests will be enhanced by the relationship and ways of workingwithin the landscape with other divergent interests can be coordinated. The role of GoK andNGOs within a forum is as facilitators (not implementers). They are sources to bring expertiseto resolve specific needs that the Forum members prioritize for action. They will facilitate andprovide needed services and links with government that can help move programs forward. Theforum is a private, independent, body that is outside of any project or other institution andserves as a broker between the perceived interests of its members and ‘outside’ pressures. Assuch, it has the real potential to become a sustainable mediating group within the landscape.Analysis/Conclusions1. Too many actors, too many agencies involved in the same program, too many “studiesand plans” and not enough funding actually going to actually implement programs withcommunity based organizations who are in desperate need of often small amounts of funding tolaunch their nature-based activities.2. There are too many partners, too many grant agreements, which has resulted inUSAID’s heavy management burden. USAID’s own financial management systems are difficultfor GoK institutions to follow (cost-reimbursement or quarterly advances requiring liquidation atend of quarter). Different timeframes created because different partners receive their funding atdifferent times hinder joint effort in the field. Partners end up having separate work plans thatare difficult to harmonize.3. Priority should be given to employ/engage individuals and community groups who havemastered various techniques for replication in other communities within the region, and possiblyfurther away (and not depend on ‘experts’ from overseas, from GoK institutions, or NGOs to doall of the community outreach training unless clearly necessary). NGOs should play a role inTA, mobilizing communities, and targeted training and will have a significant role to play in thenew PFM approach.4. The Review Team found elements of the ‘landscape and community based approach’ ofLWF at both Arabuko Sokoke (AS) and Diani-Chale through the Diani-Chale ManagementCommittee. Yet the landscapes in each of these areas remains poorly defined; key user groupsdo not share a commonly developed vision of what they would like to achieve for the area. The67

AS Forest Reserve was the key focus of FORREMS, yet the Mida Creek system, linked with theoffshore Marine Park and Reserve, are also an integral part of this landscape’s integrity. Privatesector interests, particularly the large exclusive hotels need to be part of this dialogue –particularly as these have the financial resources to lend some sustainability to a forum for thislandscape. While it is true that user groups are different at the Coast from the Laikipia situation,the problems, threats and issues of biodiversity conservation are exactly the same and willrequire a similar approach if real impact and sustainability are to be realized.5. The USAID-funded transaction advisor in the Forest Department, who will be activelyhelping in the transition from FD to a new Kenya Forest Service, should help to seek a balancebetween the FD’s own aspirations for raising income through its forest assets and the need oflocal communities to benefit in significant ways from these same resources around which theylive. Without such a balance, the FD will continue in their command-and-control role – thoughbroadened – while local communities may continue their current unregulated pressures uponthese resources. The result will be continued loss of biodiversity. This same transaction advisorshould have access to funds that would facilitate the logistical needs of FD to respond tospecific partners in future USAID NRM and biodiversity conservation activities, particularly inmoving PFM plans through the legal network to become operational within USAID’s supportedfield programs.6. Because of the problems encountered under FORREMS and KCMP with funds passingto GoK institutions (FD, KEFRI, KWS, NEMA, CD, NMK), the Review Team believes USAIDfuture funding to GoK should be designated into two areas. (1) A pool of undesignated fundsshould be available to GoK, at the national level, for logistical support of jointly agreed-upon keyactivities that directly support USAID supported programs in biodiversity and NRM. The USAIDsupported transaction advisor who will be supporting FD’s evolution into the parastatal KenyaForest Service might be the best contracting channel through which such engagements mightbe made. Under the consultant arrangements that existed earlier in the FORREMS, programfinancial flows to GoK were working much better. This approach provides a possible model. (2)A second pool of GoK funding should be placed at the disposal of either the principal contractoror pair of contractors in the reorientation and combination of FORREMS and KCMP proposedby the Review Team below in Options #1 and #2. Then, at the forum level within specificlandscapes, as stakeholder common vision and work plans are developed for activities to beprioritized within the landscape, the specific contributions/tasks of FD, KWS, KEFRI, and otherGoK institutions will be defined. In some cases there will not be a need for the services of aspecific institution, in another case there will be. When the need is commonly agreed upon,USAID funds would flow through the contractor in a sub-contract agreement for specific GoKservices and outputs. The same contractor would also have funds to support efforts for specificservices from the private sector or NGOs, also through a sub-contracting mechanism.7. The management system under CDA and ICAM were not effective in leading to timelyaction and implementation of activities. Activities implemented tended to be un-focused and in‘bits-and-pieces’ here and there – without continued and sustained efforts that could lead toimpact. Future USAID funding for any of the activities initiated should be channeled through adifferent funding mechanism – outside of government – and using a focused landscape systemsapproach in areas where some kind of functioning ‘forum of concerned stakeholders’ can bebrought together for effective action. Support to the Kenya Marine Forum did not go anywhere,partly because their mandate was too large and too geographically diverse and spread out.Recommendations:68

1. Ideally, there should be one program management unit for both FORREMS & KCMPthat will coordinate, monitor, report, disburse funds, and liaise between USAID and partners invarious field programs. This organization would have funds specifically committed to supportGoK institutions at the field implementation level, as well as funds for sub-contracting specifictasks to NGOs and private sector entities identified to accomplish specific tasks within acommon vision for specific ‘landscape systems’ – two in Laikipia district, up to two along thecoast. One possible option would be to establish one program management unit for FORREMSand KCMP with a commitment to engage in the landscape system’s approach beingaccomplished by LWF – using a membership forum of stakeholders to develop a common visionand work plan.2. A second possible option would be to channel all combined FORREMS/KCMP fundingactivities through one institution at the coast, and another in and around Mt. Kenya area(including Laikipia). In this scenario, the most appropriate institutions would be LWF and NatureKenya with a commitment by both to engage in the landscape systems approach beingaccomplished by LWF – again using a membership forum of stakeholders to develop a commonvision and work plan.3. Either option above will require resources to expand capacity of these institutions –particularly in managing grants within specific areas, accounting, and oversight. However,these options have the advantage of permitting a much greater percentage of USAID funding toreach field activities.4. Both Laikipia Wildlife Forum and Nature Kenya currently have Cooperative Agreementswith USAID and both have developed sound accounting/financial systems – which would needto be expanded.5. A separate source of funding for GoK institutions would be necessary, and manageddirectly by USAID, for any central level support USAID might wish to provide these institutions.Such funds would not be for field based implementation activities.6. Within specific geographic areas of effort: Focus, focus. Too many partners, too manyactivities. Focus on a few programs that have some real promise of some impact by end ofproject (FY 2010). Build on best work accomplished to date, and undertake intensiveimplementation. NGO facilitation seems most appropriate, with support as needed andcontracted from private sector enterprises (local, regional, international) with marketingexperience in each specific endeavor.7. Use local expertise whenever possible (e.g., private sector). Bring in local, regional, andinternational experts that clearly have the marketing, business development, accounting andecotourism industry experience required. NGOs are not for-profit private sector enterprises andneither are GoK institutions. Competition must be real and not subsidized.8. The CDA is probably not the most efficient means of channeling funds within the coastalprograms being supported by USAID. Future GoK local funding should be linked to a clearnature-based enterprise or community based NRM effort where a clear service can be identifiedthrough a specific landscape forum of local stakeholders under options #1 and #2 above. Whenidentified, a clear timeline must be given before full payment of services is made.69

9. USAID program support now needs to move away from general capacity building forGoK institutions and become more focused on a results-based outcome for impact on the actualpeople living in the 5 km. peripheral zone around protected areas (forest and marine reservesand parks) within specific landscape systems. Business and management plans are abundant;the time has come to put into action some of the elements of these plans in the targeted areasthat USAID has been supporting for the past three years.10. Program should focus on enterprise development and CBNRM activities that havealready shown promise for success rather than “litter the landscape with pilots”. Scale these upinto meaningful business enterprises.11. For implementation activities at the landscape systems level, create a grantsmanagement unit within the overall coordinating program manager’s program to channel fundstowards different purposes. One pool of funding will be for GoK interventions defined locally bylandscape forum stakeholders. A second pool of funds would be used for targeted support andsub-contracts with NGOs or private sector service providers identified as capable of providingspecific services needed to reach biodiversity conservation objectives within specific landscapesystems. A third pool of funding would be for either grants or small loans to promising NBEswithin this landscape.12. A separate pool of GoK funding should continue to be channeled at the national level tocurrent FORREMS and KCMP partners, when identified to have a direct supporting link to fieldbased programs. The transaction advisor should help coordinate these efforts with USAID SO 5CTOs.70

4.0 Major Conclusions4.1 Linkages to biodiversity ConservationProgram Similarities: While USAID has managed KCMP and FORREMS as two distinctprograms, they are in essence one biodiversity conservation program in which: 1) biodiverselandscapes should be targeted; 2) biodiversity threats should be identified using a threatsanalysis; 3) interventions should be designed to respond to the threats; 4) interventions shouldbe implemented at a scale where biodiversity results can be achieved; and 5) biodiversityconservation should be monitored using appropriate biodiversity indicators.TIST. TIST is promoting the benefits of trees to landowners and communities--food, improvingsoil, decreasing erosion, regulating temperatures, and providing construction material and fuelwood. TIST’s technical assistance to smallholders in conservation farming methods is clearlyproducing results. However, TIST activities fall outside the landscape, threats-based approach,and the link to biodiversity threat reduction in the Mt. Kenya landscape is tenuous. TISTactivities, if further supported, could become part of landscape system options considered bylandscape stakeholders.Biodiversity earmark criteria. Some FORREMS and KCMP activities fail to fulfill thebiodiversity earmark criteria. For example, TIST tree planting, the Vikwathani Maendereroecotourism activity, support to hawkers and vendors at JKPB, and support for RWH technologyhave tenuous links to biodiversity conservation.NBE links to biodiversity conservation. NBEs are being developed without a consistentanalysis of their compliance with USAID’s requirements for biodiversity programming, of theirsustainability or the scale of their impact relative to threats being posed to biodiversity.Some participants in NBEs were not aware of resource sustainability issues or the link of theirenterprises to biodiversity conservation. To ensure sustainable use and to build advocates forconservation, NBE participants will need: (1) information on sustainable use; and (2) biodiversityawareness raising to understand links of enterprises with biodiversity (this can also be used toattract a market niche: sustainably produced product, supports biodiversity conservation.4.2 Sustainable Nature-Based Business DevelopmentThreats-based approach. Under a threats-based approach, the most significant threats areidentified and NBE interventions are designed to minimize those threats. The scale of NBEsand the benefits they generate may be small relative to the threats posed to biodiversityconservation and/or the funding provided. Therefore, questions of effectiveness of the NBE aspart of a conservation effort are still unanswered.Landscape systems approach. Use of a landscape systems approach will help to ensure thatcritical biodiversity areas are captured and interventions are designed to keep the landscapeintact, maintain or rehabilitate landscape linkages. Awareness raising about biodiversityconservation is an important supporting role that NGOs can continue to play.NBE: Who are the Owners? NBEs are being developed without a clear definition of theirownership structure and therefore without a clear foundation for the long-term governance of theenterprise. This ambiguity can reduce the effectiveness of partnerships between beneficiaries71

(such as producers and communities) and sponsoring organizations (NGOs and governmententities). It can also sow the seeds for conflict over the distribution of any surpluses created byan NBE once it becomes successful.Role of sponsoring organization with NBEs. Sponsoring organizations (NGOs andgovernment entities) are staying involved in the operation of certain NBEs on a long-term basis.In many cases, the justification for this type of participation in an NBE has not been provided.Business analysis and market links. Additional business analysis and technical advice(applying a value-chain perspective; developing business plans; offering business managementadvice) are needed. The market orientation of several NBEs observed by the Review Teamcould be significantly reinforced. Better analysis and expanded business services wouldstrengthen the efforts to create viable NBEs that generate added value.Additional business services could be focused on the following:The Value Chain. Bringing a “value chain” perspective to an existing or proposed NBEprovides the means for understanding better the challenges and opportunities that face theNBE.Business Plans. Writing good business plans is an essential step in defining what steps needto be taken to make the NBE succeed and articulating that approach both to the businesspartners themselves as well as to outside parties (such as donors and sponsoringorganizations) who may provide investment funds or other resources. The Review Teamobserved that the development of business plans has not been a common practice in theUSAID-supported activities in the past.Business Management Advice. In selected cases, USAID resources could be used to obtainbusiness management advice for particularly promising NBE ventures.The emergence of local entrepreneurs. Leaders for the new NBEs have emerged in anumber of cases. A more systematic approach could be taken to identifying and encouragingsuch leaders, organizing the NBE venture to take advantage of their contributions and, asappropriate, putting more resources at their disposal.4.3 Policies related to biodiversity conservationForestry Policy: PFM pilots are in line with the new policy. If PFM interventions are notsupported during this interim period (before the Forest Act is fully operationalized), themomentum to implement PFM will be lost.Coastal Policy: USAID has supported policy development in the coastal/marine sector withoutsignificant results.4.4 Cross-Cutting Issues72

Women and Youth. Many of the activities already initiated with women and youth groupswithin the prioritized landscapes deserve continued support but need scaling up to a level thatbecomes financially feasible for them, and also can lead to impact on the identified biodiversitythreats within the landscape.Landscape Systems Approach. The landscape systems approach is the ideal model toachieve results in many cross-cutting themes within specific ecologically important andthreatened areas. Major conflicts among stakeholders competing for the same naturalresources may be prevented or significantly diminished through building consensus and acommon vision for their landscape.4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and ReportingBiodiversity Impact. FORREMS and KCMP indicators fail to relay the impact to biodiversityconservation. Possible biodiversity indicators are: (1) a flagship/keystone species that can bemonitored annually and that would give an indication of overall ecosystem health; (2) one ormore species of fish that would give an indication if fishermen’s improved practices (net size)are having positive effects on fisheries; (3) the state of coral along the coast; (4) # ofencroachments/illegal activities in protected forests.Revision of SO5 Indicators. Current SO 5 indicators should be significantly revised oradministered differently to include more focus on biodiversity conservation goals as well asimpact upon target communities who are to benefit from program community based naturalresource management engagements (the PFMs) and nature-based enterprises. The hypothesisis that doing so will lessen threats to both protected area and other natural resources underthreat, including forest reserves and marine reserves. Current indicators provide no informationof this kind, and future indicators need to do so.Change from the Perspective of Local Stakeholders. Future review and decision makingwith respect to indicators must include review by local community leaders within the landscapes.If local people, for whom efforts are being made for better and more sustainable NRM practices,do not see improvement or change for the better, then impacts will be limited or nonexistent.Programs need to understand how they will recognize ‘improvement’ to both their resourcesbase, as well as through the benefits they receive. LWF has already begun a process of thiskind with Mukogodo Forest group ranch communities that could be adapted to other programareas in the future.4.6 Program Management and ImplementationGoK Experience with USAID Financial Accounting Systems. Neither USAID/Kenya’s“Advance System” nor “Reimbursement System” of financial accounting has worked well withGoK institutions – though KWS and KEFRI have managed better than FD.Need for one program management and coordination unit. Future funding should flowthough a central overall program (FORREMS + KMCP) unit that will be held responsible toestablish overall coordination of activities.Expanding existing cooperative agreements. Enlarging cooperative agreements with currentprogram partners would appear to be the best option for timely and lowest cost programcontinuity. An IQC mechanism or new cooperative agreement could be used to access a wider73

array of possible program managers but following one of these routes would also be moreexpensive and take more time.Need to Operationalize Existing Plans, Not Create New Plans. Numerous pilot studies,general resource management plans, inventories of biodiversity resources have beencompleted within both FORREMS and KCMP, but no clear business or marketing plans, andefforts to operationalize these management plans has barely begun.74

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS5.1 Links to Biodiversity ConservationRecommendation #1:Use a landscape, threats-based approach, concentrating efforts to achieve greatestimpact.Targeting the following landscapes:1. Mt. Kenya Forest: Meru or Nyeri District2. Mukogodo Forest and four group ranches3. Arabuko Sokoke Forest, expand to include Mida Creek, Watamu and MalindiMarine Park, and associated stakeholders4. One additional landscape, depending on resources available and ability to fulfilllandscape approach criteria: Wasini-Shimoni-Vanga: including Wasini Island,Kisite Marine Park and Mpunguti Marine Reserve, and Shimba Hills NR; Diani-Chale landscape: including Kaya Diani fishing community and Diani-ChaleMarine Reserve; or Mombasa coastal landscape, including Jomo Kenyatta PublicBeach (Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu), Mombasa Marine Reserve and Park.A landscape should be targeted based on the following criteria: (1) its biodiversity value;(2) stakeholder willingness to engage and work as partners towards a common goal;and (3) potential to address threats to biodiversity conservation and produce resultsRecommendation #2:Ensure interventions fulfill the biodiversity Congressional earmark language.The Congressional earmark requires:1. The program must have an explicit biodiversity objective.2. Activities must be identified based on an analysis of threats to biodiversity.3. The program must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation.4. Site-based programs must have the intent to positively impact biologicallysignificant areas.Recommendation #3:Identify and monitor one or more indicators that show biodiversity conservation results.Recommendation #4:Continue to raise awareness of biodiversity conservation, especially to ensure that thoseinvolved in NBEs have the information they need to build sustainable use into theirenterprises.5.2 Sustainable Nature-Based Enterprise (NBE) DevelopmentRecommendation #5:Apply a more strategic vision and more systematic evaluation of candidate NBEs inUSAID investment decisions in order to assure highest “return”.75

Each NBE should be evaluated in terms of the its actual or project performance relativeto the following criteria:1. Contributes to biodiversity conservation,2. Improves livelihoods of poor communities (especially those are live nearbiodiversity resources and/or use them),3. Can be sustained by given date without outside subsidies and4. Is replicable.Recommendation #6:Clarify ownership (and therefore, of profit-sharing) of NBE earlier in the establishment ofthe business.Ideally this should be done right at the beginning to create transparency and give clear signalsto all stakeholders.Recommendation #7:Long-term roles of sponsoring organizations (NGOs) need to be specified in businessplan for each NBE to define whether they are interim facilitators or long-term partners.Recommendation #8:Expand business services to new and existing NBEs (identification of markets, linkageswith domestic and international buyers, enterprise management).Recommendation #9:Find “champions” – entrepreneurs - and assist them to scale up.5.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity ConservationRecommendation #10:Give priority to completing Community Action/Operational Plans and signing PFMagreements between CFAs and the FD so that Action/Operational Plans are ready to beimplemented once FD finalizes Forest Act implementation guidelines.Recommendation #11:Support development of a “forum” as an outgrowth of the landscape approach in thecoastal/marine environment (ASF expanded landscape). Once the forum is empowered,depending on resources and capacity, facilitate the forum to promote the development ofa coastal-marine policy.5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and ReportingRecommendation #12:Completely revise or administer differently the 13 indicators currently being used by theFORREMS and KCMP programs under SO5.Recommendation #13:76

Revise current SO 5 indicators to reflect more impact upon target communities who areto benefit from the program’s community based natural resource managementengagements (the PFMs) and nature based enterprises.Recommendation #14:Review indicators with community leaders within the target landscapes.Recommendation #15:Document success stories for impact.Recommendation #16Create at least one biodiversity indicator per landscape that addresses key threats.5.5 Program Management and ImplementationRecommendation #17:Reformulate institutional arrangement with partners to improve programmanagement/coordination and contract administration.OPTION #1 (RECOMMENDED): Establish one program management unit for FORREMS andKCMP with a commitment to engage in the landscape systems approach using a membershipforum of stakeholders to develop a common vision and work plan along the lines of theapproach applied by LWF..This proposed institutional reformulation would significantly reduce USAID SO5’s managementburden. Ideally, there should be one program management unit for both FORREMS and KCMPthat will coordinate one overall work plan for each landscape system, monitor, report, disbursefunds, and liaise between USAID and partners in various field programs. This organizationwould have funds specifically committed to support GoK institutions at the field implementationlevel, as well as funds for making grants or subcontracts for specific tasks to NGOs and privatesector entities identified to accomplish specific tasks within a common vision for specificlandscapes, as recommended above. This option could be implemented in one of two ways:OPTION #1A: Expand an existing Cooperative Agreement to assume responsibility foroverall program coordination.OPTION #1B: Solicit competitive proposals from national and international organizations.Expanding an existing grantee’s mandate to become the overall program coordinator offersseveral advantages, including ease of startup (by virtue of having a program already in place)and a record of relevant experience. The MTR Team noted attributes of the LWF program thatcould be adapted to other landscapes, which would reinforce and support the work of NatureKenya and other existing grantees. The objective of having one program manager, as isproposed under this option, is to retain the current set of grant activities while also betterorganizing their collective results.Soliciting competitive proposals, as proposed under Option #1B, opens up more options forobtaining program management expertise. It would, however, require more time andprocessing than the option of expanding an existing Cooperative Agreement.77

Figure 1: Option #1USAIDOne One Contractor Contractor or GranteeGrants Management UnitProgram Manager #1 Program Manager #2GOKNGOsNBEsMukogodo Nyeri or Meru Landscape Eastern Coast Landscapes Arabuko-Sokoke/Mida Creek/Malindi/Watamu MP,MR LandscapeOPTIONAL:(1) Wasini –Shimoni-Kisite Landscape(2) Diani-Chale Landscape(3) Mombasa (JKPB) Coastal LandscapeOPTION #2: Channel all combined FORREMS/KCMP funding activities through one institutionin and around Mt. Kenya area (including Laikipia) and another at the coast. In this scenario, themost appropriate institutions would be LWF and Nature Kenya; with a commitment by all toengage in the landscape systems approach being implemented by LWF – using a ‘membershipforum of stakeholders’ to develop a common vision and work plan.Figure 2: Option #2USAIDLWF Nature KenyaGrantsMgmtUnitGrantsMgmtUnitGOKNBEsNGOsGOKNBEsNGOsMukogodo Nyeri or Meru Landscape Eastern Coast Landscapes Arabuko-Sokoke/Mida Creek/Malindi/Watamu MP,MR LandscapeOPTIONAL:(1) Wasini –Shimoni-Kisite Landscape(2) Diani-Chale Landscape(3) Mombasa (JKPB) Coastal Landscape78

Under either option:LWF and NK currently have Cooperative Agreements with USAID and both have developedsound accounting/financial systems – which would need to be expanded.A separate source of funding for GoK institutions would be necessary, and managed directly byUSAID, for any central level support USAID might wish to provide these institutions. Such fundswould not be for field-based implementation activities.A grants management unit or units would be established under the cooperative agreementholder(s) and would serve GoK, NGO and other grant recipients using separate pools offunding, with the objective of getting funds as close to ‘ground level’ as possible so that they canbe accessed faster, when needed, as part of one work plan for each landscape system.Under either arrangement, it is important that the central program unit(s) ensure that eachrelevant partner is involved in applicable work plan preparation so that funds can beappropriately allocated by program leaders.Use local expertise whenever possible and provide increased opportunities for localpeople whose capacity has been developed through the program as a first option beforebringing in outside expertise. Increased responsibilities for local individuals give theopportunity to expand their roles as leaders within their communities, as well as extend theirexpertise more regionally.Within specific geographic areas of effort – focus, focus – rather than continue tosupport so many partners and so many activities. Focus on a few programs that have realpromise of impact by the end of the project (FY 2010). Build on best work accomplished to dateand move from planning phase to implementation.Continue funding capacity building in GoK, where a clear service can be defined, andwhere it is specifically linked to CBNRM or a NBE. A special pool of funding should beavailable at the national level for GoK logistical support targeted to specific outputs within thelandscape approach. Priority support should be given to fast-tracking FD ability to operationalizeexisting PFM plans. This support could perhaps be channeled through the soon-to-be recruitedUSAID-supported transaction advisor who will be supporting FD’s transition to a parastatal.Recommendation #18:Provide resources to expand the capacity of these institutions – particularly in managinggrants within specific areas, accounting and oversight. These options will allow a muchgreater proportion of USAID funding to reach field.Recommendation #19:Use local expertise whenever possible and provide increased opportunities for localpeople whose capacity has been developed through the program, as appropriate, as afirst option before bringing in ‘outside expertise’. Increased capacities for local individualsgives them the opportunity to expand their roles as leaders within their communities, as well asextend their expertise more regionally.79

Recommendation #20:Within specific geographic areas of effort - focus, focus – rather than continue to supporttoo many partners and too many activities. Focus on a few programs that have some realpromise of some impact by end of project (FY 2010). Build on best work accomplished to date,and undertake intensive implementation. NGO facilitation here seems most appropriate for this,with support as needed and contracted for to private sector enterprises (local, regional,international) with marketing experience in each specific endeavor.Recommendation #21:At the field level, continued capacity building in GoK institutions should be specificallylinked to a clear nature-based enterprise or community-based NRM effort where a clearservice can be defined. A separate pool of funding should be available at the national level forGoK logistical support specifically targeted to assist the biodiversity/NRM programs within thelandscape systems approach above.80

AnnexesAnnex 1: Kenya Forestry and Coastal Mid-Term Review SOWAnnex 2: Team Member Special Report - M&E IndicatorsAnnex 3: Documents ReviewedAnnex 4: Emerging Opportunities and Directions (USAID/W, State, GoK, USAID/Kenya)Annex 5: List of ContactsAnnex 6: Schedule and Work Plan of Review Team in Kenya (August - September 2006)Annex 7: Summary Description of Partner InstitutionsAnnex 8: Best Practices/Lessons Learned in CBNRM and NBE Development81

Annex 1:Scope of Work83

USAID/KENYA FORESTRY AND COASTAL PROGRAMS MID-TERM REVIEW1.0 BACKGROUNDSCOPE OF WORKUSAID/Kenya’s Natural Resources Management (NRM) program supports efforts directedtowards reducing or halting unsustainable use of natural resources outside the protected areasthrough integrated approaches that address the economic, policy, cultural and human resourcecapacity challenges of conservation. The program support focuses on: a) wildlife management,b) forestry and environmental management, and c) integrated coastal management. The midtermreview will focus on two sub-sectors namely the Forestry and Coastal Managementprograms, which are currently half-way their implementation phases. A description of the Forestand Coastal management activities is provided below:a) Forestry Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Management Strengthening(FORREMS) Program – FORREMS is a five year (2003 - 2008) project that aims to enhanceintegrated forest management and environmental governance. FORREMS objectives areachieved through: (i) capacity building support for the Forest Department; (ii) implementation ofparticipatory forestry management plans; (iii) diversification of forest-based businesses; andiv)implementation of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA). Theseactivities are implemented in Northeast Laikipia, Mt. Kenya and the Arabuko-Sokoke forestReserve. Implementing agencies include the Forest Department (FD), Kenya Forestry ResearchInstitute (KEFRI), National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), Kenya WildlifeService, National Museums of Kenya, Nature Kenya and the Institute for EnvironmentalInnovation (I4EI). The key result areas include:• Increased economic benefits to local communities living adjacent to target forestsreserves.• Positive land use change in target areas.• Increase number of stakeholders benefiting from improved NRM involvement.• Organizational capacity of community user groups strengthened.• Appropriate conservation tools and technologies for forest and range managementadopted.• Advancement of forest and environmental management policy/legislation.• Institutional strengthening of target government agencies.b) Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP) – KCMP is a three year (2004-2007)activity that aims to enhance coastal management and set a foundation for a Kenyan marinepolicy. KCMP achieves its objectives through: (i) Stakeholders capacity building for participationin integrated coastal management process and (ii) implementation of priority grassrootsconservation activities. Activities are implemented in Mombasa, Diani-Chale and Shimoni. TheCoast Development Authority is implementing the program in conjunction with Pact Inc. The keyresult areas include:• Integrated development plans for three ICM sites implemented.• Appropriate tools and technology for ICM adopted by stakeholders.• Small and medium nature-focused business practices improved84

• Advocacy for Integrated Coastal Management Policy Advanced• Constituencies for ICM Advocacy established2.0 REVIEW PURPOSEThe purpose of this mid-term review is to:i) review the relevance of USAID’s forestry and coastal management activities andresults relative to programming changes in USAID’s NRM sector. USAID/Kenya NRMprogram will focus on conservation of biodiversity.ii)provide recommendations for re-orientation and modification of approaches, andpriority activities, as necessary, so that the Mission’s forestry and coastal managementprograms optimize their effectiveness during the remaining years and fit within thebiodiversity guidelines and the new Africa Bureau Strategic Framework; andiii)review the effectiveness of the overall implementation approach, including use ofseveral partners to implement the FORREMS and KCMP programs; potential means forenhancing overall program implementation effectiveness, including identification ofactivities that can be integrated; and at the same time achieve the Mission’s overridingobjective of conservation of biodiversity.3.0 STATEMENT OF WORKUnder the newly developed USAID Strategic Framework for Africa, the agency has redesignedits focus to respond to the challenges and opportunities facing Africa. Missions are expected todevelop five year strategy statements and corresponding three year operational plans to fit therequirements of the regional strategy. With this change in strategy, it is appropriate forUSAID/Kenya to revisit the assumptions, parameters, and expected results to be achieved underits ongoing programs, with a view to revising the activities as appropriate to effectively respondto emerging issues and opportunities. USAID is interested in a robust review of the FORREMSand KCMP activities based on the following project elements:i) Linkages to biodiversity conservation• Review the extent to which the programs are contributing to both USAID and GoKbiodiversity conservation objectives;• Identify how program activities can integrate biodiversity considerations into the USAID’s/GOK’s planning processes;• Assess the effectiveness of capacity building approaches and technologies for biodiversityconservation both at governmental and local community levels.ii)Sustainable nature-focused business development• Review the existing NRM business practices and models to determine if they are beingimplemented effectively;85

• Assess the range of nature-based businesses and recommend appropriate value-additionmeasures to enhance the competitiveness of nature-based products in the mainstreammarket economy; and,• Assess the extent to which public-private sector partnerships have been integrated into thebusiness development and recommend potential partnerships to explore.iii)Policies related to biodiversity conservation• Review and identify how the programs have contributed to biodiversity and NRMpolicy/legislation reforms;• Analyze biodiversity conservation policies and recommend approaches to facilitateimplementation by the programs;• Assess the extent of community preparedness to translate emergent opportunities from newForestry policy dispensation into practical activities with emphasis on decentralization,access, use and control of natural resources; and,• Review governance issues at community levels and provide recommendations to strengthencivil society participation.iv)Cross-cutting concerns• Assess the extent to which gender, youth and HIV/AIDS issues are mainstreamed intoprogram implementation and determine ways to enhance cross-linkages;• Examine existing activities and assess if mechanisms for integrating nature-based conflictmechanisms into the programs exist and are adequate.v) Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and indicators• Assess the current systems of monitoring, evaluation and reporting to determine theiradequacy, utility and relevance to strategic management goals.• In consultation with partners come up with lessons learned and recommendations foradjustments to improve project implementation.vi) Implementation approach• Review the efficiency and management burden of managing six separate grants toimplement the two programs in terms of managing for results.• Identify biodiversity conservation support activities that can be integrated and still retain theimplementation efficiency and performance.• Identify activities that can be dropped.• Recommend approaches for integration.Based on findings from the above issues and taking into account USAID’s comparativeadvantage in the sector, recommend adjustments to the Mission’s Forestry and Coastalmanagement project approaches, implementation mechanisms and priority activities to befinanced and implemented during the remaining period.86

4.0 REQUIRED EXPERTISE:The FORREMS and KCMP are complex and multi-faceted projects that involve severalcomponents and actors. Their review therefore requires a team with broad experience andexpertise in a number of different areas including: i) institutional strengthening and programdesign; ii) natural resource management and iii) nature-based enterprise development.Respondents to this statement of work are encouraged to propose a maximum three person teamthat has the capacity to address all of the technical elements listed above as well as collectivelycover all the skills specified below:i) Project Development Specialist/Team Leader• PHD /MSc /MA in NRM or related field and well-versed in natural resource managementas well as project design and development issues;• Knowledge of USAID’s principles and program development;• Practical experience in designing and evaluating development programs and sub-sectoranalysis; and,• Demonstrated ability to assess performance measurement and application of bothqualitative and quantitative evaluation methods.ii)Natural Resource Management Specialist/ Ecologist• Masters degree in ecology or closely related field;• Experience in natural resource management related program design, evaluation and agood understanding of natural resource management issues in Sub-Saharan Africa,especially of forest and coastal management;• Knowledge of USG biodiversity requirements; and,• Experience in analysis of the development, diffusion and adoption of NRM technologiesin the context of community based natural resource management in developing countries.iii)Environmental Economist/Business Management Specialist• Experience working on community level activities/businesses in a related field ofNRM/private sector;• Ability to assess and evaluate performance, results and impact of community basedenterprises;• Proven ability to analyze economic policies to NRM and business enterprises and topropose cogent solutions to such policy constraints; and,• Technical knowledge of the concepts and principles of, and constraints to, naturefocused business development at the community level.5.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES:Technical Directions during the performance of this SOW will be provided by the CognizantTechnical Officer (CTO), Mr. Charles Oluchina, e-mail:COluchina@usaid.gov, and SO5 TeamLeader Mr. James Ndirangu, e-mail: JNdirangu@usaid.gov , Tel. 254-02-862-2000; Fax. 254-87

02-8622680. Initial briefing will be conducted at USAID/Kenya. The contractor will beexpected to prepare a work plan and present this to USAID during the first week of work.a) Literature review: The review team shall be expected to refer, at a minimum, to thefollowing list of documents:• USAID/AFR Strategic Framework for Africa• USAID/Kenya SO5 strategy document• SO5 Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)• FORREMS program activity approval document (AAD)• FORREMS performance reports 2003- 2004• FORREMS baseline survey report 2001• KCMP proposal• KCMP annual reportsAll of these documents can be downloaded from the following website:http://www.usaidkenya.org/ke.naremgnt/links.html or from Charles Oluchina(coluchina@usaid.gov)b) Participatory Process: The assessment process should be participatory, incorporating keystakeholders and a wide cross-section of staff and beneficiaries in the assessment process.c) Consultation with USAID, partners and other donors: Discussion sessions with missionmanagement, project staff and other organizations will be held. The reviewers shall be expectedto consult regularly with the USAID/CTO and SO5 Team Leader, the Government of Kenya(GoK) and other donors implementing similar activities in Kenya.d) Consultation with beneficiaries: The reviewers shall be expected to visit and verifyprogram activities in the field and consult widely with beneficiaries, government agencies andprivate sector operators on forest and marine management constraints and opportunities. Theinput from the beneficiaries shall be used, along with other sources of information, to draw uprecommendations. The review team will be responsible for determining the number, type andquality of stakeholder meetings, once they have familiarized themselves with the groups.6.0 TERMS OF PERFORMANCE:USAID expects to award a contract to a firm to perform a review of the FORREMS and KCMPactivities. The following are the terms of performance:a. The work will be performed in Nairobi, Mombasa and five other biodiversity hot spots(Arabuko Sokoke, Mt. Kenya, Laikipia and Kakamega forest) in Kenya.b. A six-day work week is authorized without premium pay.c. The performance period is o/a March 14 through April 14, 2006. All team members must becommitted to work full time on this SOW for the entire performance period:88

Project Development Specialist/Team Leader - 23 daysNRM Specialist/ Ecologist -23 daysEnvironmental Economist/ Business Specialist – 23 daysd. Logistic support: The consulting firm shall be responsible for all logistic support required bythe reviewing team including field visits, office space, furniture, office equipment, secretarialservices, photocopying and telephone services, and local travel within Nairobi.7.0 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLESThe assessment team shall be expected to deliver the following:a) Workplan/ Data Collection instrument: The consulting firm shall be expected to submit adetailed workplan in consultation with USAID and the partners, six days after the start of thecontract.b) Briefings: Briefing shall be held once a week at USAID office in the first two weeks and onceevery fortnight in the subsequent weeks with the CTO, SO5 Team Leader and ABEO OfficeChief.c) Interview notes and documents gathered: The consultants will be expected to hold extensiveconsultations with USAID partners and stakeholders. They shall make briefs of thesemeetings, workshops and focused discussions regarding the mid-term review. Thebriefs/workshop proceedings shall be turned over to USAID/Kenya along with any relevantdocuments and reports gathered during the review.d) The consultants will be expected to make a presentation to USAID management on the draftreport and findings o/a April 4, 2006.e) Final Assessment Report:Submit three copies of the draft report no later than March 30, 2006. The final report willincorporate changes requested by USAID and agreed by both parties. The Contractor shallsubmit a final report to USAID no later than April 14, 2006. The Contractor shall also deliverone electronic copy (CD-ROM) to the Cognizant Technical Officer at USAID/Kenya.Documents must be formatted for letter size paper. The reports must be prepared in the Englishlanguage and shall be presented along the following three broad sections:1. Executive Summary (10 pages maximum length):Brief SYNTHESIS OF TEAM REPORT describing: purpose, approach, findings andrecommendations.2. Main body (25 pages)i) Approach, details of findings and recommendationsii) Proposed activity focus and componentsiii) Linkages to NRM operational frameworkiv) Cross-cutting issues integration89

3. Annexes: individual reporta) Assessment SoWb) Team Compositionc) Individual team member reports (maximum length 10 pages each).d) List of documents reviewed, organizations and persons contacted, workshops held.e) Side meetings/focus group meetings and workshop notes/proceedings.90

Annex 2:MTR Special Report - M&E IndicatorsIndicator #1 concerned hectares under positive land-use change in target areas. Hectareresults are misleading in that what might be counted as a positive land use change – say fromplanting 10 hectares with seedlings (a frequently used way of measuring change) – might sixmonths later find that all the trees are dead and nothing remains. This is no different thancounting the number of trees planted, without later checking how many are still alive 6 monthslater (usually a very low number). Another example would be ‘controlled pasture landrehabilitated’. Land may have been set aside and ‘begun to be rehabilitated’ as in severalcases in community pasture lands (outside the Mokogodo Reserve), but when drought came,people had to let their animals back into these areas – completely overgrazing and degradingthem again. The indicator needs to be changed to something that actually measures realchange in management.Indicator #2 concerned the # of stakeholders benefiting directly or indirectly from involvement inimproved NRM. The problem with this indicator is that the direct and indirect stakeholders canall be counted early on in the process of implementation, and they can’t (or shouldn’t be)counted twice or three times. Yet the same people probably are double or triple counted. Thesame people will, in fact, be continuing to receive additional benefits as a program evolves.Someone who benefits from the ‘sale of seedling’ may also be benefiting from ‘a nature basedworkshop’, etc. If this issue is understood at the project management level, then the indicator isok, but most program managers what to see this number increase from year to year. The kind ofinformation being gathered about activities undertaken can be quantified in the manner beingdone, but aggregations of such data are not particularly useful for SO level monitoring purposes.A better indicator should be identified.Indicator #3 seeks to count the ‘# of adoption and replications of NRM tools, technologies andinitiatives in target areas’. The information provided, such as ‘number of hay production’activities, or ‘# of tree nurseries established’, or of ‘PFM plans completed’ represent importantactivities undertaken by a project. Such information should be reported upon within regularreports from the program. However, does such information actually help program managersassess whether or not these activities are actually leading to any kind of impact, or do theyremain simple ‘demonstrations’?Indicator #4 seeks to quantify ‘the number of conservation tools and technologies in use bothwithin and outside of protected areas’. The same issue as discussed above for indicator 2applies here. Once a ‘tool’ is applied and used, it can’t (or should not be) used and countedagain. So this number, once recorded will not change much. It is not so much the number oftools used at any particular site that is important, but whether or not the ones used wereappropriate to lead to the specific NRM and biodiversity conservation goals desired. Theresulting ‘success stories’ could be explained. For example, simply counting ‘rain waterharvesting’ as a conservation tool does not actually tell us whether or not it had anything to dowith biodiversity conservation at an impact level. What the Review Team saw at one Mokogodo‘water-point’ project activity clearly had a large impact on an entire group of people, reducedanimal/people and people/people conflict. Yet another example of a ‘water-point’ seen nearMombasa had absolutely nothing to do with program goals - but both would have beencounted.91

Indicator #5 seeks to quantify the ‘# of integrated NRM plans implemented’. This is a processindicator and does provide information needed. The numbers will not be large because theprocess leading to achieving this result will take significant effort over time.Indicator #6 represents an indexed score of five criteria and is applied to different partnersworking within the program. If completed properly, the information provided would help aprogram manager perhaps understand how information might or might not be flowing within theprogram. It is an indicator that should be assigned to one person within the program to becompleted once each year. However, the Review Team wonders whether or not thisinformation was actually useful to anyone in program management – or was simply busyworkfor someone to complete.Indicator # 7 attempted to report on the benefits to communities from nature based enterprises.This was a good indicator and does measure real $ being generated for program supportedactivities. From this indicator it is clear that the amounts are extremely small, in most cases,and one must question the scale at which activities are being undertaken if any kind of impactcould be expected. Seemingly missing from these lists however (from Arabuko Sokoke forexample) are the revenues generated from the sale of butterfly larvae and mushrooms, whichthe Review Team observed being managed by farmers in areas being supported by FORREMS.We know that very significant income is being acquired by some community members in sale ofbutterfly pupae (but perhaps supported by another donor). This issues raises another issue.Unless monitoring is inclusive of all the NBE’s within a specific landscape system, particularly asit focuses on PFM and specific communities, it is not meaningful to assess overall impact ofCBNRM activities within this landscape and if behavior changes are taking place as a result.Furthermore, without a better understanding of the significance of the amount earned fromthese activities, there is no way one could possibly know if they are having any impact atall.Without a holistic understanding of what is actually happening, reporting on piecemealactivities does not mean very much. So how this indicator is actually applied should bereviewed.Indicator #7A sought to measure the ‘non financial benefits from nature based enterprises’.This seems to be an added indicator, as it was not one of the original 13. This was a difficultindicator to report upon and the creative examples given of such ‘benefits’ shows the difficultiesfaced by the person trying to ‘put something down’ for this indicator. Examples include “38 km.of improved access roads”, ‘4 schools fenced’, ‘2 motorbikes, 5 radios, 20 trained scouts’, ‘8villages adjacent Rumuruti Forest patrolled’. It is not clear how the NBEs led to any of these‘benefits’, except that they were other activities the project undertook within these areas.Consider dropping this indictor.Indicator #8 measures ‘the organizational capacity of community user groups’. This index tool‘seeks to score strengths and weaknesses of organizations across 196 items in seven areas oforganizational capacity. This indicator would be enough for anyone to run away. This indicatormay be useful if applied very sparingly (once every two years), and undertaken by the sameindividual each time so that there was some consistency from one ‘evaluation to another’.Indicator #9 measures the % of targeted GoK Partners are using new M&E tracking systems.No report reviewed had attempted to measure this. The last report by KWS for FORREMDsimply states that “all GoK partners are developing monitoring tools as a requirement by thegovernment in the performance contracts”. This indicator provides no useful information, unless92

someone should be engaged to review this every year or two, at the same time the ‘indices’ aremeasured.Indicator #10 is another ‘index’ to measure the ‘status of policy and legislation environment toencourage community incentives for NR conservation’. The index is difficult to measure andcould only be done by someone specifically trained to do this for the program overall. As notedabove for other indices, this could be done once every year or two by one person engaged to dothis.Indicator #11 seeks to measure the ‘level of policy/legislation advancement’ taking place. Thisis seen as a process, so an index was suggested to measure this. The information reported onis important (i.e. 80% of the Forest Bill of 2005 has been accomplished, 100% of EMCA hasbeen completed), but this indicator is information that could be tracked and completed by oneperson annually. Of perhaps greater importance is whether or not any of this is having anydirect impact on the communities for whom it was intended. EMCA was passed, but nothinghas yet happened to put this legislation to work in permitting CBOs to have the legal right tomanage NRM resources.Indicators #12 and #13 were never reported on in any FORREMS or KCMP reports the ReviewTeam could find. Indicator #12 seeks to measure the ‘functionality of internal KWS databasesfor monitoring and evaluation’ and #13 the ‘level of capacity of selected CBOs in policyformulation and advocacy’. Both are complex indexed scores. The latter is an index of 40 itemspertaining to skill levels of an organizations capacity in advocacy. The former is an indexedscore representing the degree of functionality (indexed score) of a given database. Whileknowing such information might be useful to a program manager, this kind of information shouldsimply be reviewed from time to time by a program manager and reported on annually, ifdesired. This information does not rise to the level of a SO 5 performance indicator because ofthe complexity of acquiring it.93

Annex 3:Documents ConsultedFORREMS M&E Report 2005 (Forest/Rangeland Rehabilitation & Environmental ManagementStrengthening Initiatives), Performance Monitoring Report 2005.FORREMS M&E Report 2004, Performance Monitoring Report 2004.FORREMS Performance Monitoring Program (PMP), (Draft), August 4, 2006.FORREMS Performance Monitoring Report, FORREMS Program Year 2005.FORREMS Project (2002-2008), Laikipia Focal Area, PowerPoint Presentation, August 28,2006.FORREMS: Socio-Economic baseline survey and analysis of natural resource managementoptions in Mukogondo Landscape, Laikipia District, USAID, Kenya Forestry Research Institute,April 2005.Arabuko-Sokoko Forest: North Coast, “Enhanced Sustainability of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forestthrough improved natural resource management by and for the stakeholders”.“Medicinal Plant-based Enterprises for Communities Living Adjacent to Kakamega Forest”“Transition to the Kenya Forest Service”“Plantation Establishment in Kenya: A Case Study on Shamba System”“Common Indicators and Definitions”, USAID“Request for information on FY04 Kenya Mission activities and funding in Forestry, Biodiversity,and Invasive Species”, USAID“FY04 Kenya Mission activities and funding in Forestry, Biodiversity, and Invasive SpeciesReport”“FY05 Kenya Mission activities and funding in Forestry, Biodiversity, and Invasive SpeciesReport”.118 Forestry Report – USAID/Kenya Forestry ActivitiesUSAID/Kenya Strategic Objective 5 (SO 5), Activity Approval Document, Forestry Rehabilitation& Environmental Management Strengthening Initiative (Attachment 1), June 12, 2002“Request for Kenya Mission Support for TIST’s USAID/GDA Funding Request to Start UP theInternational Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST) in Kenya”, Institute forEnvironmental Innovation, April 2004.“A Project Proposal on Capacity Building, Technical Assistance and Material Support for NEMAH/Q and District Environment Committees”, Proposal to USAID on FORREMS, by NEMA-Kenya, April 2003.94

“Enhanced Sustainability at Arabuko-Sokoke Forest through improved natural resourcesmanagement by and for stakeholders”, proposal on FORREMS by Nature Kenya, March 2003.“Summary report for the status of FORREMS project activities and Laikipia-Mukogodo site,January 2006.“Forestry Management Support Activity Description”, Laikipia Wildlife Forum.“A Proposal to USAID in Support of KEFRI Activities under FORREMS”(Forest/RangeRehabilitation & Environmental Management Strengthening Initiative), Kenya Forestry ResearchInstitute (KEFRI), February 2003.“2005-2006 Annual Work Plan”, Covering period of July 1 2005 through June 30, 2006), MENRForest Department, USAID, Kenya, April 2005.“US Forest Service Support to Kenya Forestry Department and Kenya Wildlife Service throughthe USAID-funded FORREMS Activity”, US Forestry Service, August 4, 2006.“Outcomes, Achievements, and Recommendations from the Commonwealth SecretariatFunded PFM Support to the GoK Forest Department, 2001-2005”.Forest Policy, Republic of Kenya, 2005FORREMS 2004-2005 Annual Work Plan (covering period July 1-June 30, 2005),“Building Capacity in Wildfire Management”, USDA Forest Service, March 2005.“Kenya Coastal Management Initiative 2: Project Concept and Year One Work Activities”,University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center, July 2002.“Jomo Kenyata Public Beach Self-Help Group”, Kenya Coast Management Initiative,Organizational Capacity Assessment Report, PACT – Kenya/URU Program, Kahaso & Gathinji,February 2001.“Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP): Year One Performance Report, 2003-04Annual Work Plan (September 1, 2003– June 30, 2004), Coast Development Authority, Ministryof Regional Development Authorities, USAID September 2004.“KCMP FY 2005-06 Progress Report (July 2005 – February 2006), Coast DevelopmentAuthority, Ministry of Regional Development Authorities, February 2005.“Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP): Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting Plan,First Draft”, Coast Development Authority, Ministry of Regional Development Authorities, July2004.“Product Quality, Sustainability, and Market Acceptability Project: Legitimization andmainstreaming of Beach Operators”, European Development Fund, PACT – Kenya, October2004.“Report of Second Kenya Coastal and Marine Forum”, Kanamai Conference Center, nearMombassa, September 2001.95

“Year Two Workplan and Responsibilities”, Phase 2 (KCMP-2), Kenya Coastal ManagementProgram (KCMI), September 2003.“KCMI Water Activity – Status Report”, February 2003.KCMP Presentation of Results, PowerPoint presentation to Review Team, August 6, 2006, byMainaina Mburu, CDA, Mombasa.“Indicator Number 7: Financial Results to Communities from Nature-focused Businesses”.Kenya Coastal Management Initiative, Extension Concept Paper, USAID and the University ofRhode Island Coastal Resources Center (URI/CRC), October 2000.“Integrated Water Resources Management for Mombasa”, USAID Kenya IWRM Proposal.Performance Monitoring Plan for S0 5, USAID Kenya, February 2004Strategic Objective Five, USAID Kenya, 2005Strategic Plan 2005-2010, KEFRI, Nairobi, Kenya“A Profile on Structure and Activities”, KEFRI, Nairobi, KenyaKenya Forestry Research Institute: Service Charter, Nairobi, Kenya, 2006.“Mukogodo Forest Integrated Management Plan, 2006-2016”, Mukogodo Integrated forestManagement Plan Prepared by FORREMS Focal Area Team (FAT), June 2006.Kagombe, Joram, “Kenya Forestry Research Initiative: FORREMS Project”, 2005/20006 AnnualReport, July 2006.Kagombe et al, “Strengthening Community Structures to Participate in Natural ResourcesManagement in Mukogodo – Laikipia District”, FOREMS-KEFRI Project Report # 4, November2004.Kimondo et al, “Training Course on Tree Nursery Establishment, Species Selection and FieldEstablishment for Extension Staff and Farmers”, August 2004.Kagombe et at, “Socio-Economic and Natural Resources Baseline Survey in MukogodoLandscape, Laikipia District”, FOREMS-KEFRI Project Report # 6, June 2006.Muturi et al, “Range Rehabilitation nof Mukogodo Landsape”, FOREMS-KEFRI Project Report #3, September, 2004Kagombe, Jorem, “Performance Progress Report, July 2005 – June 2006 Report”, July 2006.CD Disk: “Biodiversity Conservation: A Guide to USAID Staff and Partners”, undated.“Understanding the New Forestry Policy and Forests Act, 2005”, Center for EnvironmentalLegal Research and Education, Ludekei et al, 2006.96

1.3.1 USAID/WashingtonAnnex 4:Emerging Opportunities and DirectionsUSAID’s ongoing restructuring process may present opportunities for USAID missions tostrengthen biodiversity conservation programs and biodiversity monitoring; however, while it isclear that biodiversity conservation will remain an agency priority, it is, as yet, unclear if and howcountries will be ranked as far as biodiversity importance, how funding decisions will be made,and how monitoring parameters for biodiversity will be formulated (See Strategic Framework forAfrica, which will be superseded by new Agency-State guidance).Under the most recent, and still evolving, strategic framework [joint State-USAID], biodiversityconservation and natural resources management fall under Investing in People: To help nationsachieve sustainable impacts on the well-being and productivity of their populations througheffective and accountable investments in the environment (Program Area 2), education(Program Area 3), health (Program Area 1), and other social services (Program Area 4). TheEnvironment Program Area includes natural resources and biodiversity; clean humanenvironment; and clean water and sanitation. Whereas previously, biodiversity programming inmost missions, including USAID/Kenya, had fallen under the economic growth portfolio, thisrestructuring may offer more flexibility in biodiversity programming. However, the move awayfrom economic growth has been controversial within USAID, and while the new alignment maybring opportunities, there may as well be drawbacks.1.3.2 USAID/KenyaUSAID/Kenya’s comparative advantage—as well as USAID globally—in biodiversityprogramming is in working at community level to harness local-level benefits; in strengtheningcross-cutting linkages that can help scale-up biodiversity impact; and at the same time, workingat central levels to promote the enabling environment for biodiversity conservation. Thiscomparative advantage is well-illustrated in USAID/Kenya’s current SO 5 program. With theGoK’s new focus on community-based management of natural resources (especially in theforestry sector, with the recent approval of forestry legislation that encourages participatoryforest management), USAID/Kenya has the opportunity to align with GOK objectives to promotecommunity-level impact and benefits. USAID’s leadership in the biodiversity conservation areain Kenya could bring resources to bear from other donors and the private sector, and helpensure that successful pilots will be scaled up for broad-based impact.1.3.3 Forest DepartmentForest Department’s new Forestry Policy will provide the enabling legislation for PFM. Sincethe new law is broad, FD is developing 19 sets of implementation guidelines, detailedprocedures of engagement, which will be gazetted and will become legally binding subsidiaryregulations. The first set of guidelines to be developed cover community and private sectorinvolvement (the PFM guidelines); these have been produced in draft. The third set will covercharcoal, and are in the process of being complied. FD expects the implementation guidelinesfor PFM to be in place by January 2007 (pers comms, FD meeting, August 2006), and with thatmilestone, the law will be ready to be operationalized. This provides a long-awaited opportunityfor communities to become truly involved in forest management and empowered to benefit from97

forest resources. FD staff have unanimously placed their support behind PFM, although someFD staff have expressed reluctance because they feel certain communities may not have thecapacity to participate, and some communities think that the PFM approach translates intocommunity control rather than a partnership with the FD.The Forest Policy describes the transformation of FD into Kenya Forest Service, a para-statalthat will in part be funded by the GOK, and in part raise its own funds by providing services tostakeholders. The transformation will be facilitated by a USAID transactional advisor, atechnical expert who will work closely with FD staff to strengthen the new demand-drivenapproach. While this transformation will present challenges in that a GOK institution that hadpreviously received funds from the government budget and donors, will now be required toassess the key services stakeholders require and that they will be willing to pay for. Toimplement this transformation, FD staff will have to shift attitudes and function as a privatesector entity; this could present opportunities in that the new Kenya Forest Service could shedservices that are less demanded, and focus on those services their stakeholders andbeneficiaries require and are willing to support and partner with KFS in---for example, PFM.98

Annex 5:Contacts97

Organization Name Telephone Email Address FunctionUSAID/Nairobi, KenyaRobert Buzzard +254-0722-335314 robuzzard@usaid.gov Team Leader, SO 5Charles Oluchina +254-0722-331273; 8622717 coluchina@usaid.gov SO 5 Program Management SpecialistBeatrice Wamalwa +254-020-862-2357 bwamalwa@usaid.gov CTO: Nature Kenya, LWFWairimu Mungai +254-020-862-2357 wmungai@usaid.gov CTO: TIST, NEMA, KEFRICatherine Mungai +254-020-862-2357 cmungai@usaid.gov Controller's OfficeFrancis Kavulu+254-020-862-2357; 0725-417-198c fkavulu@usaid.gov USAID Procurement/AcquisitionsDwight Al SmithUSAID Program OfficerSECIDBill Hand +1-202-628-4551, ext 20 bah@secid.org Senior Development Advisor, SECIDHarry Wheeler +1-202-628-4551, ext 11 hhw@secid.org SECID, Executive DirectorPA Governments Services robuzzard@usaid.gov USAID NRMWalter Weaver walter.weaver@paconsulting.com Acting EPIQ II Deputy DirectorAmy Fitzpatrickamy.fitzpatrick@paconsulting.comGreg Michaels greg.michaels@paconsulting.com Economist, Environmental SpecialistRick Thibault rick@neonflux.com Branding SpecialistKaren Menczer perros2@earthlink.net NRM Specialist, EcologistArabuko SokokeAWFCoast Development Authority(Mombasa) & ICAMDistrict Forest OfficesAnthony Githitho +254-042-32380 kipepeo@afracaonline.co.ke Kipepeo Project ManagerProf. James Kiyiapi +254-020-2710367, 0721-989897 Jkiyiapi@awfke.org Director, Kenya ProgramJ. Wainaina Mburu +254-0722-556084 c wainaina@cdakenya.orgEsther Luganje +254-0722-448375 luganje@cdakenya.orgAgnes Muaguinia agnes@cdakenya.org Finance OfficerFredricle Mdoe +254-0736-653-684 ndoe@dcakenya.org Water DepartmentB .A Mwandotto +254-0722-755749 bmjumwa@yahoo.co.uk Deputy Managing DirectorSaeed Mwaguni +254-0733-600910Alfred Abongo +254-0722-727486 agabongo@yahoo.com DFO, KaikipiaAnampiuDFO, Meru Forest StationM. Abuto Chief Forester, Eastern Province,MeruMr. James Mburu +254-0722-888489 jammburus@yahoo.com District Forest Office, NyeriDavid NjengaForester, NyeriMr. KuliembiForester, Nayuki Forest StationMargaret MwansiAsst. DFO, LaikipiaFisheries DepartmentMartha Mukira +254-0733-736704 mar_mukira@yahoo.com98

Organization Name Telephone Email Address FunctionForest DeptDavid Mbuaguaccf@wananchicomccf@forestry.go.keChief Conservator of ForestsBen Wandago +254-0722-771235 c bwandago@yahoo.co.uk FORREMS DirectorSimon Gioche +254-0722-332626 c sgioche@yahoo.com Forester (FD or other org?)Jilnganji Yakhama yakhama@forestry.go.ke Forest ReformsEmilo Mugo +254-0733-712879 enpugo@forestry.go.ke Project manger, Greenzone Dvt. ProjectEric Nahama nahamet@forestry.go.ke Partnerships & Agreements SectionD.K. Mwanzia mwanzadak@yahoo.com Forest Fire ManagementErnest Ambune ccf@wananchi.com DCCFD.K. Mbugua ccf@wananchi.com Ag CCFAnthony Maina ammaina@mail.forestry.go.ke Head of Dry Lands ForestsJohn Karanja Macharia +254-0733-712879 macarla@yahoo.com Senior Conservator of ForestsDavid MuluForester, Arabuko SokokeW.M. MwawegaAssist. DFO, KicofiTsimba NyawaForester, Arabuko SokokeSamson N. NjigiaHQ, Nat.Forest & Conservation BranchF KabiukiDistrict Forester, Arabuko SokokeStephen W. NjobuAssist. DFO, MaldiErastus OchiengForester, Arabuko Sokoke, JiloreICIPE Dr. Wilber Lwande Bioprospecting Team LeaderMaxwell LumbasiBio-enterprises, Applied BioprospectingFrederick W. Nduguli +254-0722-723-174 fwnduguli@icipe.organd Conservation ProgrammeBernard Nixon Onyimbo +254-0722-385-894 nonyimbo@icipe.org Outreach specialistCharles Lllavu MwoshiChair, Isiekuti Organic Farming YouthGroupvarious individualsMuliru Farmers Conservation GroupTimothy LovongaMadioli Women's Group (Beekeeping,more), KakamegaRhoda LijodiMadioli Women's Group (Beekeeping,more), KakamegaLaban LihunguMondia Farmer, KakamegaJoseph MachariaTechnician, Kakamega Industrial Facility(KEEP)Anna LugonzoMondia Farmer, KakamegaKEEPEmily MujinjiTreasurer, Kakamega EnvironmentalEducation Program (KEEP)99

Organization Name Telephone Email Address FunctionKEFRI Bernard Kigomo +254-66-32891/2/3 bnkigomo@yahoo.com Deputy Director, R & DMbae Muchiri +254-0722-873675 c mbaemuchiri2002@yahoo.com Nat'l Progrm Coord, Forest PlantationsBernard Owuor +254-0720-446094 c benowuor@yahoo.com Research OfficerJoram Kagombe +254-0733-809949 c jokagombe@yahoo.com Senior Research OfficerFrancis GachathiSenior Research OfficerKavaka Mykonyi +254-0722-389819 c mukonyi2000@yahoo.com Bioprospecting/IP CoordinatorDoris Multa +254-0722-732754 Research Scientist (Mombasa)Center Dir.Simon N. WaimngoResearch ScientistCharles OngweyaNyeriKenya BDS ProgramKenya Wildlife ServiceKenya Marine and Fisheries Institute(KMFRI)David Knopp +254-020-375-3318 /9 david@kenyabds.com Chief of PartyHewson Kabugi +254-0722-370702 c hkabugi@kws.org Forest Programme CoordinatorAggrey Maumo +254-0722-611044 KWS-IKP@wananchi.comMohamed Oman +254-0722-764691 MombasaAnthony Wandon rhino@kws.org Researcher, Rhino ProgramWycliffe Mutero +254-0722-245924 muterow@kws.org Head GIS sectionIsrael Makau +254-600800- ext 2258 forests@kws.org Volunteer: Forest ProgramMargaret Ndungu ndungum@kws.org Corporate PlannerEmily Atai forests@kws.org Volunteer: Forest ProgramStephen Mwangi +254-0722-796229 smwangi@kmfri.co.keLaikipiaArthur NyguraDistrict Commisionere, LaikipiaLWFMida CreekDr. Anthony King +254-060-31600/ 0720-416148 director@laikipia.org Executive Director, LWFDr, Delphine King +254-0723-555160 Technical Director LWFFred Kihara +254-0722-376821 c programs@laikipia.orgLWF FORREMS Program DevelopmentOfficer+E34Maria DoddsPrivate Farmer, Aloe SecundifloraArafa Salim +254-0733-626573 arafabaya@yahoo.com Mida Creek association chairwomanMukogodo Group RanchesGabriel NyausiChairperson, Il-maamusi100

Organization Name Telephone Email Address FunctionNature KenyaWashington Ayiemba +254-0733-803060 c wayiemba@swiftmalindi.com Project Manager, ASFMTJoan GichukiCommunity Extension agent, ASFMTChristopher ChenguCommunity Extension agent, ASFMTEdward MwannyaArabuke SokokeFrancis KagemaArabuke Sokoke, Ecotourism OfficerPaul Matika +254-020-3749957 office@naturekenya.org Executive DirectorDenvas GekondiFinancial OfficerSamuel John KatoiChair, Market PlaceNEMABen Ithagu +254-0722-666542 benithagu@yahoo.com District Environental OfficerIsaiah M GicheruSuzanne MwangiDistrict Environental Officer, Neru CentralNanyukiOtherPACT KenyaTimm Tennigkeit +254-0725-666947 timm.tennigkeit@unique-forst.de Unique Forestry ConsultantsJohn Weyula Nojow +254-072-657-3674 Manager, Savona Isle ResortAnthony Kanuki +254-0722-312329 anthony@pactke.org Mombosa program mangerTIST Ramesh Narasimhan +254-0724-253320 c rameshn@tist.org Tulsa, OklahomaJoshuah Irungu +254-0724-255369 c joshuahirungu@tist.org Administrative Director, TIST-KE, MeruGayo MhilaSupervisor, TZSolomon Waiganjo +254-0721-791746 c solomonwaiganjo@tist.orgPhilip James +254-0724-255368 philjames@tist.org TIST E.Africa CoordinatorAlphaxard M. Kimani +254-0733-553880 alphaxkim2000@yahoo.com TIST Nanyuki Field Coordinator101

Annex 6:Schedule of Work Plan of Review Team in Kenya102

Met with Express at 3 pm for Travel to Mombassa; Obtained cell phone at 4 pm. Kare13:00- 15:30: JK Public Beach-Meeting with Fishermen's group, Tube Renters & Hawkers; Kenya Marine Forum group, saw Tudor Water11:30 - 3 pm: Visit to Wasini, Wasini Woman's Group Board Walk (PACT Kenya); spoke with Dhow Transport Association members, bac12:30-14:00: met with Magangani butterfly farmers group, saw mushroom activities, beekeeping; discussed program with community memVisited Kipepeo "Market Place" facilities and butterfly pupae delivery; 15:00 - 5:30 pm: Met with Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management TeaMet with Dida committee on Participatory Forest Management (8 members), saw their management plan; then visited specific income genLakipia, MAugust 5 Saturday 1 Travel Day Swanson Departs 8 am6 Sunday Travel Day Swanson arrives in Nairobi from Minnesota/Amsterdam at 7:15 pm.7 Monday 1 Prepare logistics for work/travel; Met Charles/Rober at USAID at 2:30 pm and Mission Director Steven Hayden at 2:458 Tuesday 1 Post-award meeting (1) with USAID: 11:00-12:30, ICIPE Blue Room; Stakeholders Meeting (2) at USAID: 2-3:30 pmTimm Tennigkeit (Unique Forestry Consultants), Serena, 6:00 PM9 Wednesday 1 Breakfast Briefing with USAID (7- 9:30 am) at Safari Hotel; Reading documents, working on work plan10 Thursday 1 Meeting Kenya Forest Research Institute/Kagombe: 8:30-10:30 am, depart hotel 7:00; Africa Wildlife Foundation/Legilisho: 2:3011 Friday 1 S0 5 USAID meeting, 9-10:30 am; Mt. Kenya travel arrangements made at Express Travel ; TIST Meeting: 2:30-4 pm12 Saturday 1 Reading documents, begin draft report13 Sunday Day Off Mombassa, A14 Monday 1 KWS (10:30 - 11 am); Forest Department (2:00 -4); Nature Kenya (5-6 pm)15 Tuesday 1 Flight to Mombasa:Dpt. 8:30-Arr 9:30; depart Safari hotel 6:30 (Mombasa: White Sands Hotel); Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach (2 hrs); Dialy11:00 Meeting at Coastal Development Authority offices (met ICAM working group) of KCMP program activities in coastal region16:30- 18:00 Visited Vikwathani Maenderero Group (CBO and Eco-tourism plan - PACT Kenya with CDA, at hotel by 6 pmCharles Oluchina, USAID, will meet us in Mombasa and travel with us16 Wednesday 1 9:00 Visited Mwaepe Fish Landing Site (program coordinator/KWS and group DCMT of fishermen3-4:30 pm, Vised individual beneficiaries of RWH water catchment tanks - discussed group tanks CDA/KMFRI, back to hotel at 6:30 pm17 Thursday 1 Dpt: 7 am for Gede Forest Station: Meet Washington (Nature Kenya) at Forest Station 9:30; Arabuko Sokoke and NEMA District Office; n11:00 met with Misitu Waoen Group (beekeeping - also some colllected butterfly pupae, forestry)18 Friday 1 Dpt: 7:30 - 9:30: Visited NEMA office in Magarini, saw 'sand harvesting'; 9:00 - 11: Visited Mida Creek mangroves program; 11:00 travel ttrees, bee-keeping) in Dida farms; Return to Watuma, at hotel by 6:3019 Saturday 1 Dpt from Watamu 7:20; paid car rental; At airport by 10:45 (late);Return to Nairobi, Dpt: 11:30 Arr: 12:10; afternoon for writing20 Sunday 0 Day Off (Greg Michaels arrives in Nairobi) Team Meeting, Discussed summary results and orientation for Draft, Writing of Draft begin103

21 Monday 1 Dep by road, Mt. Kenya 7:00; Arrive in Nanyuki to LWF (Nanyuki Airfield 10 km to town); TIST, KWS-District Warden, FD-Local Officer, DGreg Meets with various partners in Nairobi (interviews established by RS); Greg goes to Express Travel in am to pick up airline ticket22 Tuesday 1 Depart Nanyuki for East Laikipia 8:00; ILMAMUSI CBO at their office; Herbal pharmacy/tree nursery; Loiragai water project-Il Ngruesi23 Wednesday 1 Depart Nanyuki 8:00; FD nursery-Doldol; Yaaku Cultural Project; Makurian Range Rehab and Group Ranch Pasture Management; Wrap-24 Thursday 1 Mt Kenya, West and Northwest areas: itinerary TBD, night in Meru; Michaels returns from Kakamega (via Kisumu) in pm25 Friday 1 Mt. Kenya, Meru, TIST, KWS: itinerary TBD (night in Nanyuki)26 Saturday 1 Return from Mt. Kenya in AM, meeting with Greg Michaels in afternoon27 Sunday Day Off (Karen and Richard spend day writing)(team meeting)28 Monday 1 Team writes report; additional meetings (USAID, Nature Kenya, ICIPE)29 Tuesday 1 Team writes report; additional meetings, as necessary (Donor Harmonization, Alignment and Coordiantion Meeting - Swanson attends at30 Wednesday 1 Team writes report; additional meetings, as necessary (Robert Buzzard dpt for USA-will follow with email)31 Thursday 1 Team finalizes draft report; Copy of 'conclusions/recommendations section given to USAID/Charles; 3 pm Nbo timeSept. 1 Friday 1 Meeting (5): Powerpoint Debriefing with USAID and partners on Conclusions/Recommendations, 10-12:30 (ICIPE Blue Room); PM work o2 Saturday 1 Karen Menczer dpt.for Ghana, continued work on draft document, with imput of debriefing from stakeholders; Draft copy to Walter Weave3 Sunday 0 Day Off4 Monday 1 Labor Day; Richard Swanson return to USA at 7:30 pm, revisions on draft from responses at Friday debriefing (cont.)5 Tuesday 1 Swanson arrives Minnesota 13:00, Travel Day; Submit Hard Copy Draft Report to USAID/Kenya (3 copies)6 Wednesday 1 Completion of Final Report (there will be interaction by email between Menczer, Michaels and Swanson at this stage)7 Thursday 1 Completion of Final Report (there will be interaction by email between Menczer, Michaels and Swanson at this stage); Greg leaves Nairo8 Friday 1 Completion of Final Report (there will be interaction by email between Menczer, Michaels and Swanson at this stage)9,10 Sat/Sun Days offMonday 0 Swanson sends copy of final report to Michaels and Menczer for their final reading and input11 Send copy of final report to Walter Weaver for final internal review (Weaver then passes final document to Thibault) COB Monda12 Tuesday 0 Completion of Final Report sent to PA Consulting Rick Thibault, Branding Specialist (PA Consulting);13 Wednesday 0 PA Consulting sends to USAID/Kenya by email copy of Final Report and by FEDEX hardcopies of document + CD rom disk withwill not be necessary, and that process may be completed by 13th, at latest.)104

Annex 7:Description of Institutions Partnering in FORREMS and KCMP Programs(Selected)1. Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI)KEFRI has been a Kenyan public research institution It has about 1100 staff members, 94 ofwhom have a Master degree or higher. It is a parastatal with a board of directors, and has 6regional research centers, 4 sub-centers, and 6 field stations located in different agro-ecologicalzones in Kenya. Funding comes 70% from the GoK, and 30% from donors or raised throughservices rendered on contract. As a parastatal, KEFRI can seek funding for special researchand other professional services of its staff. They possess their own commercial forests fromwhich revenue can be generated. It can actively seek new commercial agreements with theprivate sector and directly with funding agencies, like USAID.Forestry research and its dissemination has been the mandate of the institution. In the past thiswas largely basic in nature, theoretical in scope. Historically, the Forest Department wasKEFRI’s sole client, and for with whom it worked to develop forestry management plans. Withrecent new GoK legislation and an ACT passed this year, its mandate will increasingly extend toapplied research; research will be more participatory with communities having a much greatersay in the management of resources in the proposed participatory forestry management plansproposed. USAID provided some limited TA to KEFRI during its time of transition from a purelypublic institution to a parastatal, and KEFRI has had an important role during the past severalyears in undertaking fauna, flora, and social economic inventories and preparing forestmanagement plans for FOREMS (specifically in the Mukogodo Landscape region) and KEFRI.As a parastatal, KEFRI has come to realize that many of its own aspirations depend on changesin government legislation with respect to forest and land resources. They are concerned withthe slow pace of reforms taking place within the forest sector (Forest Department), which itself,will soon begin the process of becoming a parastatal.KEFRI has recently developed a Strategic Plan, 2005-2010, and USAID wishes to support theirefforts to the extent to which strategic objectives are compatible. The strategic objectivesoutlined for this period are:(1) To generate knowledge and technologies for farm forestry, natural forests, dry landforestry, and plantation forests.(2) To strengthen research and management capacity(3) To improve seed production, distribution, and marketing(4) To disseminate forest research findings(5) To improve corporate profile and public image(6) To strengthen linkages and partnerships with stakeholders. 1KEFRI is seeking contracts from its broad spectrum of potential clients to provide training inlandscaping, nursery management, soil analysis, forest management, furniture and fancy itemproduction and can contract services for social forestry, landscaping, participatory forest1 KEFRI Strategic Plan: 2005-2010, Nairobi, Kenya, 2005.97

management, tree nursery management, forest management, tree pest management, seedcollection and handling. 2National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) 3Prior to 1989, GoK agencies and departments at the District level tried to address environmentalmanagement according to statutory provisions through ‘environmental officers’. Without welldefined mandates and lack of resources, these officers achieved little in terms of environmentalmanagement. Following the Rio World Summit on Sustainable Development in 1992, Kenyatook a major step by preparing the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP-1993). From thiswas established, for the first time, the legal and institutional framework for environmentalmanagement with strong and wide representation at the district level. In 1999, theEnvironmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) was passed. District EnvironmentalCommittees (DECs) began to be created throughout Kenya in 2002. There was a need for asupport agency to support these field-based groups, so NEMA was formed to provide suchcoordination, and USAID became a major supporter in 2002 to help build the capacity of thisnew GoK institution. This was an important step, since USAID support was also going to ForestDepartment and the Kenya Wildlife Service, as part of support in forestry and improvedmanagement at the District Level. Support has helped NEMA personnel to become part ofteams working at the district level, as community based NRM plans have developed. TheReview Team, when in the field visits, were accompanied by local leaders of NEMA.Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) (taken directly from a LWF PowerPoint Presentation datedFeb.6, 2006)LWF was formed in 1992 in response to KWS initiative to engage landowners and land users inmanagement of wildlife outside protected areas. It is perhaps the most effective communitybased conservation in East Africa. LWF is a pioneering community conservation organisationmade up of pastoralists, small-scale farmers, local community environmental groups,international conservation and development organisations, tourism ventures and privateranches, all with a common goal:Mission: To conserve the integrity of the Laikipia ecosystem by creatively managing naturalresources to improve the livelihoods of its people. Laikipia’ s biodiversity is globally unique –remarkably, Laikipia is not a formal protected area.Primary objectives of LWF include:(1) Maintenance of ecosystem integrity and processes(2) Establishment and development of community conservation projects in wildlifedispersal areas(3) Development of conservation enterprises.As a fee-paying membership forum, it is currently made up of• 28 community groups representing over 200,000 of its members and beneficiaries2 KENFI Service Charter, Nairobi, Kenya, 2006.3 Information taken from “A Project Proposal on Capacity Building…for NEMA”, April 2003 and NEMA’s MukogodoForest impact assessment, December 2005.98

• 31 large scale ranches• 31 tourism operators• 69 individuals• 5 conservation Interest Groups• 1 rural development organizationLWF has identified five key areas to focus the interventions it supports and promotes:(1) Community Conservation(2) Wildlife Management(3) Tourism Development(4) Environmental Education(5) Security/RadioUSAID’s support through FORREMS, which began in 2003-2005, and most recently throughanother ongoing cooperative agreement, has helped AWF develop its efforts in CBNRM and inconservation enterprises, efforts that will need continued support as further directimplementation is undertaken.TIST (The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program)TIST is a program developed by the Institute for Environmental Innovation, initially designed andlaunched in Tanzania in 1999. In its own words, “TIST empowers Small Groups of 8-12subsistence farmers to reverse the devastating effects of deforestation, drought, and famine” 4 .TIST Small Groups have planted over 22 million trees, the results of which can be seen atwww.tist.org. TIST small group members receive a small cash reward for planting trees andkeeping them alive. The basis for these payments is the greenhouse gas (GhG) potential of thetrees. There is a growing worldwide effort to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oneway to do this is by sequestering carbon in trees as they grow. The hypothesis is that, in theshort term TIST (CAAC) is paying a fixed price of $16 per 1000 trees as a program incentive. Inthe long term, the asset value will supplant the value of these payments, at which point theSmall Groups will share in the actual revenues generated from the sale of GhG credits. Otherincentives are built into the TIST program, including agro-forestry concepts, improved cultivationtechniques to name a couple. TIST programs require a robust monitoring and measurementprogram, which includes field auditors who make regular visits to small groups to verify treesplanted (and maintained) over time.4 TIST, Institute for Environmental Innovation, April 2004.99

Annex 8: Best Practices/Lessons Learned in CBNRM and NBE Development• If natural resource-dependent communities are involved in natural resource-basedincome generation activities, they are likely to use resources in a sustainable manner andimplement a user-driven management and control system.• The wider “community” should benefit from natural resource-based enterprises, wherethe natural resources being used and commercialized are held in common by the community. Apercentage of revenue from community-based enterprises can be retained and be channeledback to the community for development projects. However, if a business needs to set asiderevenue for conservation or community benefit projects and another business with the sameproduct does not have to do the same, the “playing field” is uneven and puts the communityrequired to set aside profits at a disadvantage.• NGO involvement should focus on TA and training, and not be part of the value chain—“the business of doing business” should be kept separate from TA. The NGO should serve tocatalyze enterprise development. An NGO is actually a subsidized, hidden management cost,but often a necessary element in NR enterprise development in rural, often isolatedcommunities. NGOs should be prepared to scale back and should have an exit strategy andtimeline for withdrawal. The aim is to build entrepreneurs within the community and help makethe community self-reliant rather than dependant on the NGO.• One role for NGOs is to ensure transparency in delivering benefits from NR enterprisesbeyond the people directly involved in the enterprise and to the wider community. The NGOcan assist in building the decision-making mechanisms, and ensuring transparency andrepresentation, without imposing a decision-making framework on the community.• One of the more important roles an NGO can play is in monitoring. As a “disinterestedparty,” a NGO can undertake the monitoring role, especially in evaluating community benefitdistribution to ensure it is fair, and not skewed to any individual or group.• Not everyone has the qualities of an entrepreneur. All members of a community can beprimary producers—the harvesters, but the true entrepreneurs—the secondary processors—arethe community members who have demonstrated particular skills, interests and businessaptitude.• Start-up costs for experimental processing technologies and for other productdevelopment can be funded with grants since a rural community is usually unable to risk thecapitol at this experimental stage. But thereafter, loans should be used to assist businesses toexpand.• Loans should be at commercial rates and TA (from NGOs) should be separate from thelending function. For example, SAFIRE developed a partnership with a bank to promote rurallending. SAFIRE invested money in the bank as collateral, and the bank made loans to ruralentrepreneurs based on the bank’s risk assessment. SAFIRE’s investment was done as a“secret partner” so that SAFIRE could keep the loan component separate from the TA/businesssupport component. Without SAFIRE’s investment, the bank would have been unlikely toaccept the risk involved in lending to rural, start-up, NBEs.100

• NR based enterprises were originally promoted by conservation organizations as anapproach to biodiversity conservation. But NBEs, as with any other business, must first beabout profits. Second to profits, the link between the enterprise and biodiversity conservationcan be made, and more widespread community benefits can be considered (SAFIRE).• Tracking conservation benefit takes at least ten years, and tracking enterprisedevelopment success along with biodiversity conservation is a fairly new field. It is difficult todeclare successes during early stages in NR based enterprise development.Best Practices1. Joint Partnership in Eco-tourism, The Makuleke people of South AfricaThe Makuleke people live in the northeast corner of South Africa, and currently reside inresettlement villages next to Kruger National Park (KNP). After apartheid, the Makulekeregained title to their traditional land, and through a Communal Property Agreement (CPA) theMakuleke have gained the right to manage the land. The Makuleke decided not to resettle inthe park, but to leave it as a contract-managed park. The Makuleke Region of Kruger ismanaged jointly by the Makuleke CPA and the KNP through a Joint Management Board. TheMakuleke agreement with KNP requires that they mange their portion of the park according tosimilar rules that apply to the rest of the park.The Makuleke have a contract with a private sector partner, Matswani Safaris, to develop an upmarketlodge along the confluence of two rivers in the northern part of KNP. The lodge willemploy approximately 30 people from the village, and the developer will pay a monthly lease feeto the Makuleke CPA and will contribute a monthly fee to a community development fund.Under the agreement, Matswani Safaris will pay the Makuleke CPA eight percent of all revenuegenerated by the business as well as another two percent to the development fund. MatswaniSafaris also pays a monthly traversing fee for every vehicle based in the Makuleke region. Abond guarantees Matswani Safaris performance for the duration of the agreement. Matswanihas undertaken a vocational training program to train local tour guides and hospitality workersfor positions at the lodge.In 2000, through an open bidding process, the Makuleke offered a private safari company therights to hunt two elephant and two buffalo. The first hunt earned just under US$100,000, whichhas been allocated to a variety of development projects in the village. Some of the huntingincome from 2000 was used to purchase vehicles for the use of the Executive of the CPA andthe Tribal Authority. A full community meeting authorized funding decisions for use of thisrevenue. The CPA wants to phase out hunting once the lodge and other camps they aredeveloping are in operation.Seven Makuleke residents have received training as safari guides. Other training has included:26 students trained at technion level in conservation management, tourism, and business skills;a leadership training program for the executive committee of the CPA; and training for someMakuleke leaders at the Wits School of Public and Development Management.Small businesses have spun-off from this ecotourism initiative. A brick making business issupplying bricks to developments in the park and a guesthouse and museum will house a craftmaking business.101

2. Village Management of Fuel wood Markets in Niger, West Africa 5Throughout Africa and among CILSS member countries in particular, the State public servicescontinue to control and manage public domain forests. As with State protection of wildlife andother resources in national parks and reserves, the State has neither the manpower, training, ormeans to assure the protection, must less management, of its forest reserves. By permittingrural communities concession rights to their traditional territories, the Nigerian Forerst Servicehas found a way to protect and manage these resources on a sustainable basis, whilemobilizing more of the taxes it needs for public administration.Nigerian villages are working our internal rules on how to manage their own resources – notalways the way the Forest Service might think best, but acceptable undere socio-culturalarrangements in the community. Residents of adjacent villages may not prevent each otherfrom entering local woodlots to get wood because they belong to the same extended families;but they will be quick to bar outsiders from access.The Government of Niger has introduced fundamental change by devolving to rural peopleauthority over their own local woodlands and responsibility for their management. This policyinnovation builds on existing concepts of land tenure and natural resource governance andmanagement. Men, women, and children in these rural communities are deriving substantialcash flows from the wood trade, in places where cash is usually scarce. In the controlledmarkets, the system of six-year rotations creates conditions under which sustainable use ofthese natural resources becomes realistically feasible. Community members appreciate thatthey are fortunate in obtaining these benefits and take their responsibilities for managementseriously.3. Community Management of Fish Resources of Rouafi Pond (Niger, West Africa) 6Rouafi Pond Fishers Cooperative and its internal regulations have taken the initiative inextending local governance and management of the fisheries far beyond the point authorized bycurrent (Nigerian) national law. Management of a commonly shared natural resource such as apond, with its fish populations, can clearly only be successful if all concerned by the resourcesupport this concept. Such a resource is best managed by one inter-village cooperative toavoid risks of destructive competition among local organizations. The Cooperative governs andmanages Rouafi Pond in fact as a common good. The fact that few openly challengecooperative authority, in spite of grumbling and posturing by some, suggests that most fishersallow long-term common interests to take precedence over individual, short term concerns.Common organization around this resource has strengthened the capacity of these localcommunities vis-à-vis outsiders, not only in regulating access to the resource, but in controllingprices paid by fish buyers, and in ensuring that local communities benefit from revenuesproduced by the Pond. Credit has become available to sustain the activity as well. RouafiFishers’ Cooperative governance and management activities dovetail nicely with the spirit of theNiger law prescribing decentralization and increased management of renewable resources bylocal users.5 Decentralized Natural Resource Management in the Republic of Niger, USAID/PADLOS, ARD, Inc. Kankani VillageManagement of Fuelwood Markets, Swanson & Hasanne April 1998,6 Decentralized Natural Resource Management in the Republic of Niger, USAID/PADLOS, ARD, Inc. CommunityManagement of Fish Resources of Rouafi Pond, Swanson & Hasanne April 1998.102

4. The Ronier Palms of Albarkaize (Niger Republic) 7When given the possibility of truly managing their own resources, local communities canbecome very creative in developing and extending their management prerogatives. Members ofthe Albarkaize brigade expressed the strong belief that they must also protect other resources in‘their district’. Their active patrolling of access and controlling of the use of Special Districtresources by outsiders has produced some visible and positive effects. Some wildlife specieshave reappeared (e.g. a small herd of cob). Wild waterfowl of all kinds, including ducks andgeese, have returned to the district. Hunting pressures elsewhere encourages animals andgame birds to congregate in the district for greater safety. Government officials and powerful,influential ‘outsiders’ always try to ‘get around’ established rules of a community. Themanagement committee is asked to ‘make an exception’ for ‘this’ person. Local managementstructures must be given the legal authority to reject these kinds of incursions on theirmanagement authority. Providing a framework to manage wild resources and a means to deriveclear benefits from management efforts absolutely conditions long-term sustainability.5. Sustainable Potable Water Management 8This case study illustrates the translation in practical terms of the 1993 (Niger) law, in one site,where village management of a water point began in March 1991. It took six years for StateMinistries’ decrees to provide full legal recognition of practical experiments underway all overthe country. The success of the town’s water system, where each pail of water taken is paid forby water users, can be attributed to a number of reasons. (1) The General assembly electedas Water Committee President the Kore Mairoua Chief, who is both respected and obeyed bycommunity members; many of the people of this village, located along a heavily traveled, pavedroad between Dogon Doutchi and Dosso, have developed a keen business sense and knowhow to manage things; residents say they want their village to be known as the “Number 1village” in the area. ‘Look’, we were told, ‘we are already the best village in terms of managingour own water system. We are also first in providing leadership for the educational needs of ourchildren’; residents also note ‘we also have a major savings account and credit program whichhas grown into a very large account with major loans to members of the community’. It recentlyboasted a balance of $34,000. All Kore Mairoua business people have joined this savings andloan program and this too has helped the community to grow economically. Women’sinvolvement was considered as an important element of success. They took part in deciding onthe placement of the water points and the characteristics and nature of the faucet system.Women continue to play an important role as primary supervisors of water use in the village,and collectors of the money that allows the system to operate. The system of record keeping setup initially is also important to the sustainability of this community-managed water system.6. Do Targeted Development Activities Reduce Pressures on Parks/Reservesthrough Changed Human Behavior? 9A study was made, following four years of activities among communities living in and aroundprotected areas within Madagascar. The general hypothesis was that by providing an7 Decentralized Natural Resource Management in the Republic of Niger, USAID/PADLOS, ARD, Inc. The RonierPalms of Albarkaize, Swanson & Hasanne April 19988 Decentralized Natural Resource Management in the Republic of Niger, USAID/PADLOS, ARD, Inc., Kore Mairoua:Sustainable Potable Water Management,, Swanson & Hasanne April 1998.9 Hypothesis Testing: Do targeted Activities Reduce Pressures on Parks and Reserves through changed humanbehavior?, ANGAP, TR&D, Swanson, 1996.103

alternative means of obtaining a livelihood, people currently engaged in destructive pressuresupon protected areas would be willing to change and modify their behavior. Changes wouldlead to reduced threats upon protected areas, greater partnerships and co-ownership of theprotected resources for the mutual well-being of the people living closest to these endangeredresources. Some of the major conclusions from a study of numerous case studies included inthe resulting publication were:• Changing human behavior is always a very long-term process, full of unexpected pitfalls.In most cases, program activities (in Madagascar) in spite of their cost, represented a ‘drop inthe bucket’ towards having real impact on reducing the most serious pressures…the issues wasusually that the scale of these activities are too small….No one development activity can begiven sole credit to ‘reducing pressures upon a specific threat’ on a protected area…it will be thesynergy developed among a range of successful efforts which may lead to these results.• A general theme is the fact that it takes a great deal of time and effort to launch any kindof successful development activity. Linked to the inherent difficulty of the task set out for ICDPprograms has been the problem of focus and scale. Few ICDPs are truly focused. All beginwith a very large menu of development activities - often considered ‘door openers’. Greaterfocus on fewer activities, with professional guidance, over a longer period of time will havegreater and lasting impact. If we want results, we must show the necessary commitment longterm.7. Zimbabwe’s Communal Area Management Program for Indigenous Resources(CAMPFIRE)“By conferring proprietorship of wildlife resources to the Rural District Councils (RDC) throughthe mechanism of “Appropriate Authority”, benefits in fact did accrue to populations residing inproximity to favored habitat with its rich endowment of charismatic megafauna. Most revenuesstill derive from the consumptive, sustainable use of this resource. The maintenance of trophyquality and overall wildlife numbers indicates that wildlife populations are being sustainablyexploited under present conditions. Most observers consider the hunting quotas in CAMPFIREareas to be conservative.CAMPFIRE’s philosophy engenders a positive sense of empowerment and its approach is wellentrenchedamong local populations as it is across government departments. Non-wildliferesources, including some mineral resources, are coming under the CAMPFIRE umbrella…CAMPFIRE functions best where the Rural Development Authorities have devolved someauthority, and the majority of revenues, to the producer level. Where benefits are minimal orhave been generalized to a wider population, the essential link to improved conservation breaksdown….CAMPFIRE’s early success was founded upon an already established international wildlifemarket, and its leaders were successful in helping local Zimbabwe communities link up to thisrevenue stream – therby benefiting not only their own socioeconomic development, but alsoleading to the sustainable management and successful conservation of this resource…. For the104

past several years, CAMPFIRE has begun diversifying into other conservation-based economicactivities….” 10A number of specific themes stood out as important to the success the CAMPFIRE program: thelegitimacy of non-government organizations, the need for strong partnerships, the importance ofcultural values, the inadequacy of protected area systems to protect biodiversity, planning (andtransparency) for public scrutiny, and the importance of balancing results and flexibility inprogramming. 11“CAMPFIRE’s experience reaffirms the validity and utility of involving NGOs as important actorsin the development process….NGO legitimacy is not a given, but is based on specificcomparative strengths in serving and responding to local people and their community-basedorganizations.”“CAMPFIRE’s controversial acceptance of sport hunting of elephants (and other animals) as ameans of furthering conservation based community development proved to be a lightning rod forcontroversy. Modern communications technology…mean that activist participation can be veryfocused and politically distinct, circumstances that are particularly susceptible to US interestgroup pressures. This civil society oversight can be healthy, but it should be considered at theplanning stage….Oftentimes the opposition is not domestic, not well-organized, and or notpopular with decision makers. CAMPFIRE has been able to survive, but the efforts made toassure survival provide lessons for what may become a more characteristic level of (US) publicinvolvement in specific development assistance activities.”“CAMPFIRE’s conservation objectives are permanent and meeting them is an ongoing effort.What is remarkable and instructive about the program are the importance and constancy of theunderlying CAMPFIRE principles as guideposts in making constant programmatic adjustments”.These include:(1) The essential “owners” of the CAMPFIRE program within Zimbabwe are the ruralcommunities and their elected representatives at the Rural District Level.(2) Sustainable management of their natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable,and their socio-economic well-being are the focus of program managers.(3) Wildlife utilization can compete economically and financially with other extensive formsof land use.(4) Communities deriving wealth from wildlife will both wish, and be able, to protect theseresources, but only under favorable conditions.(5) Communities not only will be willing to manage these resources, but also can becomecapable of doing so, and will invest in this management.(6) With control over resources, farmers’ behavior will lead to the improved conservation ofthe resource base.” 1210 Final Report, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Zimbabwe Natural Resources Management Project, Phase II, CommunalAreas Management Program for Indigenous Resources, CAMPFIRE, The Mitchell Group & SECID, July 31, 1998 bySowers, Swanson, et. al., pp. i.11 CAMPFIRE review, 1998, p. 25.12 CAMPFIRE review, 1998, selected passages, pp. 133-144105